Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crab Robot Helps Remove Stomach Cancer

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the under-the-spleen dept.

Medicine 83

redletterdave writes "Singaporean researchers have created a miniature robot with a pincer and a hook that can remove early-stage stomach cancers without leaving any scars. Mounted on an endoscope, it enters the patient's gut through the mouth. It has a pincer to hold cancerous tissues, and a hook that slices them off and coagulates blood to stop bleeding. With the help of a tiny camera attached to the endoscope, the surgeon sees what's inside the gut and controls the robotic arms remotely while sitting in front of a monitor screen. The robot has already helped remove early-stage stomach cancers in five patients in Hong Kong and India, using a fraction of the time normally taken in open and keyhole surgeries that put patients at higher risk of infection and leave behind scars."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hm... (5, Funny)

Mursk (928595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896989)

So it's a cancer that removes cancer?

Yo, dawg...

Re:Hm... (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897183)

So let me get this straight. To cure my cancer, I need to get crabs?

Re:Hm... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897377)

So it's a cancer that removes cancer?

Hahnemann must be laughing in his grave!

At least Singapore is doing something (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897889)

People around the world get cancer

Doctors around the world charge exorbitant fees to treat cancers, often resulting in cancer patients dying from, you guess it, cancer

At least Singapore is doing something right - they develop a device which can cut off the cancer clusters

Re:At least Singapore is doing something (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898257)

Are you implying that cancer research and treatment causes more cancer?

Re:At least Singapore is doing something (1)

moozey (2437812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899425)

Could be referring to the fact that some people can't afford cancer treatment so they're left with very little they can do? Beats me...

You don't know how to read, do you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38900041)

GP was saying that unlike doctors around the world who charge their cancer patients arms and legs with false promises that often lead to the patients dying from their cancers anyway, the folks in that tiny island state (Singapore) developed a device which can remove cancer cluster

Of course the device won't magically cure cancer, but at least they can snipped out the cancer cells and remove them out of the patient's body - something like taking out the garbage instead of leaving them inside

Re:You don't know how to read, do you? (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 2 years ago | (#38900137)

Right, like surgery is never an option. They needed a robot to invent it. No one has ever taken cancer cells out before. What an idiot.

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898835)

So it's a cancer that removes cancer?

Yo, dawg...

I know you were trying to be clever and savvy but please, stop now.

Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897017)

Welcome to the future! It's creepy, terrifying, and bizarre. And no flying cars.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897341)

my cat has stomach cancer, more specifically lymphatic cancer that spread to his stomach. Would this work on cats?

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (3, Informative)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897661)

No, the lymphoma would still be present and just metastasize to some other organ/tissue. This might treat the tumor in the stomach, but it would only be a stop gap measure with limited viability in the long haul. There are other recent technologies however that might make a difference, including monoclonal antibodies carrying everything from toxins and markers for the immune system to nano-particles of metals that can convert various EMR into heat and kill tumors and cancer cells. You may want to do a quick look up for animal experimentation for cancer research to see if anyone in your area is conducting research for feline lymphoma.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898033)

they say that pregnozone is really effective for cat cancer. fingers crossed!

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (1)

Physician (861339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899181)

If you're talking about lymphoma, that cannot be treated with surgical resection. Radiation and chemotherapy are the methods of choice.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (4, Informative)

kaliann (1316559) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899335)

IAAV. Very sorry to hear about your cat. I can try to offer you some information, but I encourage you to discuss options with your vet.

  Lymphoma, one of the most common forms of cancer in cats, cannot generally be cured by excision. By the time of diagnosis it is frequently in multiple organs, and it spreads easily by lymphatic ducts and blood vessels. Lymphoma has many different forms, and these vary in prognosis, so it may be worth your while to pursue further diagnostics to determine which type is being faced (B-cell, T-cell, acute, chronic, large cell, small cell, granular cell, virus associated, etc.).

Chemotherapy is available for cats, and many vets have access to basic protocols for lymphoma or can refer you to a veterinary oncologist (cancer specialist).

Please understand that the goals for veterinary chemotherapy are generally much different than in human medicine. Human medicine usually aims for a complete cure, and that can mean putting the patient through a very stressful - sometimes debilitating - regimen of potent drugs. By contrast, veterinary medicine considers "good time" to be a worthy goal if cure is unlikely. For example: if the highest doses of treatment return a 5% survival rate but a poor quality of life under treatment, this is unlikely to be recommended by your vet. (S)he will more likely recommend a regimen that prolongs your pet's life without severely decreasing its quality. We try to keep pets as happy/comfortable as we can for as long as we can.

Also, even in cases where cancer-killing chemotherapy is likely to be unrewarding, anti-inflammatory and steroid drugs can provide relief from discomfort and sometimes slow progression. They also tend to be inexpensive compared to the more aggressive protocols.

I wish you the best of luck.

The original question of whether or not this would work on cats: a small enough version could work on cats, but a veterinarian would have to have access to it. It will be a while before this is widespread in the human market, let alone in the veterinary world. It is essentially an (immense!) improvement on the non-robotic biopsy tools already in use in endoscopy, with a lovely cautery feature built in.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | about 2 years ago | (#38900093)

thanks for your thoughts. We're giving Charlie pregnozone daily, which has really helped with his appetite and he's gained a pound in the past couple weeks. we're also giving him these little chemo pills once every three weeks, but we need to sequester him for a day because his pee is dangerous to Mr. Cheeks. Vet says he should have a year of good life, and we plan to enjoy it with him.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (1)

kaliann (1316559) | about 2 years ago | (#38903361)

I'm really glad to hear that. Sounds like he will be getting some of that "good time" with you. Best of luck.

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (2)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897579)

I'll give 30 karma to the first person who can find an article with a picture of the robot. Ok, maybe I can't give away karma, but you get my drift.

From now on, I declare that all slashdot articles referring to robotic crustaceans MUST include either a picture or video of the robot!

Re:Uh, a robot crab that crawls down your throat? (5, Informative)

callmetom (2564045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897609)

Found it []

Pics or it didn't happen (3, Insightful)

Lambeco (1705140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897041)

How can you write an article about a cancer-killing crab robot and not include a picture of said robo-crab?

Re:Pics or it didn't happen (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897131)

Here is a picture of the device (5, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897251)

The Globe and Mail is also running this story and they included a picture of the device [] , just like every other site that ran the Reuters story. But thank you slashdot for continuing to link to shitty IBT stories, because I had never seen a crab before.

Re:Here is a picture of the device (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897645)

Apparently that answers it - it's a crab-like set of claws, not a robo-crab - lame.

That is not a robot (5, Interesting)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897057)

That is not a robot. It is a tele-operated tool, related to a waldo (A waldo mimics one's movements precisely - See Heinlein's story Waldo). Call it a waldo, just to keep it simple. For example, a powered suit worn by a person is a very complex waldo.

A robot is not completely operated by a human. It can be partially so; the Mars rovers are robots that do what they are told, but interpret the commands with their own programming, as they are 45 light minutes away and cannot be controlled directly.

A robot has it's own "brain". It independently operates in its environment by its own perception and judgement.

A claw on a stick is not a robot. Words are important. These things have names, and confusing the terminology muddles communication.

Re:That is not a robot (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897139)

Sorry, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Wikipedia, among others, defines robot as a mechanical agent that be autonomous, semi-autonomous, or remote controlled. We've had bomb disposal robots for years, for instance, that are entirely remote controlled.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

Mursk (928595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897195)

Yeah, as much as I want to back up the Heinlein reference, I'm not sure it's that black and white.

Re:That is not a robot (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897291)

Yeah, my only point is we don't yet have enough words in the English language to distinguish among all the various forms of our non-biological overlords, underlings, and peers. The word robot has been co-opted to mean almost any kind of vaguely anthropomorphic mechanism, mechanical "arm", wind-up toy, UAV, artificial voice, Mars rover, Transformer, etc. Android used to be a viable term, but now would be confused with the OS. Droid is right out.

Re:That is not a robot (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897427)

the English language to distinguish among all the various forms of our non-biological overlords, underlings, and peers.

Indeed. I guess when I hear "robot", I think of something with at least partly autonomous operation. RC planes aren't robots. Deep sea ROVs aren't robots. The mars landers are the crossover point, designed to operate semi-autonomously, here's what to do, you know how to do it, and here's what to do if you have a problem. (which may involve us taking back more direct control)

I think even the simple roomba could start being classified a robot, we tell it where to work and it does its think on its own. (we tell it what to do, and it works out the details on how to accomplish that, adapting to conditions without external correction) Those cars with computers in them that were on that desert race last year, those were definitely robots.

This thing on the other hand, is very similar to an ROV, it's merely a remotely-controlled tool. It's no more a robot than the claw machine in the arcade.

Re:That is not a robot (2)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898011)

That's not exactly true. The amount of intelligence built into remote medical technology today is fairly astounding. There are surgical robots that can be shipped to Africa for a world class surgeon to operate half a world away. That includes multiple tool sets so multiple surgeons can operate simultaneously, microscopic stereo video, enhancements that allow a surgeons tool manipulation to be smooth and precise despite the lag due to satellite communications.

There are layers of heuristics, predictive algorithms, noise dampening, on and on... This is not a simple puppet. There is real intelligence on the performing side that is completely autonomous to the machine. That said, it is a robotic tool designed to remote and enhance the intent of a human user. So one may want to distinguish "Robot" from "Robotic Tool". It is a fine distinction and incredibly blurry, which is at least one reason that folks haven't bothered to draw that particular line. Perhaps as we have more fully autonomous robotic entities running all over the landscape that will change.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898499)

Droid is right out.

I thank you for the image of a carnivorous bunny rabbit that just popped into my head. ("The Castle Arrrggghhh???")

Re:That is not a robot (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899523)

Droid is right out.

Damn. So this is not the 'droid I'm looking for?

Re:That is not a robot (1)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897233)

Yeah, but bomb disposal robots aren't really robots. They're glorified remote control cars with cameras. They are very much waldos. But, then, this is one of those common usage arguments. If enough people say it is then yadda yadda yadda.

Re:That is not a robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897241)

Then, you should define remote controlled airplanes as drones, aka unarmed recreational robots. Hell, why not TV's, VCR's, TIVO's since they're remote controlled.

Regardless of how you name them, in society, the word robot has only a few meaning. An endoscope with a claw attached, in the same society, is called a tool.

Websites promoting stories with misleading titles/content, are not news providers, but journalists. (BIG difference)

Re:That is not a robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897581)

Yeah, and Wikipedia is wrong. Imagine that.

Since when has Wikipedia become the new "word of god" bible?
It's just a bunch of admins around Jimmy Wales.
Yes it poses as "our" encyclopaedia. But go ahead and try to contribute, and it will only pass, if it fits their personal views. (Aka "is neutral". Relative to their POV, of course.) Otherwise it's "vandalism". Which is "weird", considering it had proper sources, clear and clean logic and all.

A fully autonomous machine is a robot.
A remote-controlled machine is just a tool. Otherwise your screwdriver would become a robot if you'd attach a remote controlled motor to it. Silly.
And semi-autonomous: Well, nobody said being a robot was a either-or case. They are somewhere in-between.

They are bomb disposal machines. Always have been, always will be. The rest is just PR.
Otherwise your toy RC car would be a robot too.

Conclusion: It can't act for itself, it's not a robot. Period.

Re:That is not a robot (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897621)

Oh ok, got it. I'll just source AC as my source for that then? Post a definition from a reputable source or STFU.

Re:That is not a robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898009)

Definition of ROBOT
a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
: a mechanism guided by automatic controls []

Note that not only 2 and 3 require automation. 1a simply requires that it be humanlike and performs various complex acts.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898699)

Also note that none of them apply to the crabby cancer carver-on-a-stick.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

subreality (157447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899209)

How about this for the distinguishing line?: Robots have a motor. Waldos are powered by humans.

I can't think of any counterexamples off the top of my head.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#38899695)

I don't understand your distinction. In the Heinlein story, the Waldos are mechanical hands that move according to how a human moves a glove, sometimes at great distances (I seem to remember one part of the story where Waldo is on a space station wearing gloves, while the mechanical hands are on Earth). The Waldos would be powered by electricity and moved by motors. If you meant controlled by humans, then remote controlled car toys would be Waldos, which would not sit right with many slashdaughters, myself included.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#38900003)

You're right, "Waldos" is a bad term. I meant the devices that bear the name in real life - [] - not the proper Heinlein sort.

The distinction I'm trying to draw is not automation, but connection. Robots are independently powered, vs remote manipulators which are direct mechanical linkages and move solely by the force input of the human.

By my distinction, R/C toys are robots.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#38903965)

Ah, I see now. Though that would mean RC car toys would be robots, while this:

would be a waldo. It still wouldn't differentiate between an autonomous robot like Data from a Mars rover.

Re:Thats 4.5 minutes to 14 minutes away. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897141)

Re:Thats 4.5 minutes to 14 minutes away. depending on whether Mars is in opposition or not.

Re:That is not a robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898873)

I'd disagree and if I printed out this entire discussion I'd use my paper cutting robot, made from a pair of single edged cutting utensils on a pivot with conveniently shaped handles to fit the users digits. I love my Fiskar brand robot, it cuts paper so well!

Re:That is not a robot (2)

Physician (861339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899199)

I am quite certain that Waldo is a guy with a bad fashion sense that likes to hide out in big crowds.

Re:That is not a robot (1)

Whibla (210729) | about 2 years ago | (#38906101)

Wally! ;-)

Remote control tools (4, Informative)

AxeTheMax (1163705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897065)

That's what it is, a remote tool controlled by the surgeon. Not a robot which would work independently.

Re:Remote control tools (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897997)

So, if I make a device that handles various tasks by itself, but doesn't do certain things until it gives me information and receives my meta-instructions, how is that not a robot?

If this little stomach crab robot can swim, cling, communicate, and cauterize, but needs an MD to know what cancer looks like, it's too advanced to be considered a waldo. Wikipedia refers to these as telerobotics, as in an intermediate capability between robotics (fully autonomous) and telemanipulators (aka waldos).

Re:Remote control tools (1)

kaliann (1316559) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899443)

Not jumping in to the semantics pool, but this device is attached to the endoscope and has pincers and cautery. It doesn't go wandering off on its own. Doc directs endoscope with camera, sees tumor, and - with the joystick - extends a go-go-gadget cancer-clipper which snips and cauterizes the site and (ideally) retrieves the excised portion for biopsy.

Sounds like it's most consistent with what you are describing as telemanipulation. This thing has no ability to react to input other than what the driver gives it in real time.

Oh (1, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897083)

So that's where crabby patties come from.

Re:Oh (1)

Ocker3 (1232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897319)

Oh, the humanity errr Crabality? That such noble servants in the efforts to end cancer would end their lives as fast food, quite probably leading to More cancer.

I read Crap robot .... (1, Informative)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897177)

and thought "Great, yet another shiny Apple iDevice"

Re:I read Crap robot .... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38913359)

I wondered what the hell a good one could do...

ancient irony, overlooked (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897217)

nobody has yet to mention here that the term cancer is related to the crab (constellation) as the first cancer reported removed from a person was remarked to look "like a crab".

Re:ancient irony, overlooked (1)

FreedomOfThought (2544248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897329)

nobody has yet to mention here that the term cancer is related to the crab (constellation) as the first cancer reported removed from a person was remarked to look "like a crab".

Except for the first comment...

Re:ancient irony, overlooked (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897433)

I'm hoping your journal is...humorous. Otherwise, you're just as batshit crazy as he is.

Re:ancient irony, overlooked (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897853)

I'm hoping your journal is...humorous

humor is not the aim of my journal. the aim of my journal is to show very plainly that ron paul actually aims to do quite nearly the opposite of what his cult members claim he stands for. however, in no small part due to the high prevalence of said cult members here on slashdot, my karma is permanently at terrible, meaning most people will never read my comments here.

journal entries, on the other hand, cannot be moderated down, no matter how much other people here might hate what i say in mine. hence most of what i have to say, i place there, under the aspiration that someone will read it even if my comments largely will be kept unread.

Endoscope pincers (2)

Misagon (1135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897245)

Modern endoscopes used for colonoscopy and gastroscopy already have small pincers at the end. These can cut off, and retrieve, cancer polyps in the colon -- polyps being the pre-stage to colon cancer. However, these polyps are tiny. It sounds to me like the new device described in the article is mostly like a larger variation of these pincers.

Too bad that this "crab" device was not available seven months ago when I went through major surgery to remove a small tumour from my colon. It would have made a huge difference to me. The operation took six hours, I had a painful week at the hospital (partly because the epidural failed at one point) and over a month's absence from work. I am left with a huge scar down the entirety of my abdomen.

Re:Endoscope pincers (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897357)

a small tumour from my colon

The operation took six hours

These two don't match up. Care to explain? A total colectomy usually only takes about two hours.

Anyway, this device is essentially an upgraded version of the standard endoscopic instruments and as such isn't really a huge change - though I'm sure it's nice. They say "cancers" but I'm pretty sure that they mean the gastric equivalent of colon polyps.

Re:Endoscope pincers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897969)

And full evisceration takes seconds. I don't think the complexity of the operation is all that strongly correlated with the mass of the tissue removed.

Re:Endoscope pincers (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898149)

Really? Are you sure that's the case when they do a full ileo-anal anastamosis? (That's where they fashion a J-shaped pouch from the end of the intestine and sew it to the tissue just behind the anal sphincter.) My own procedure in 2003 took six and a half hours to complete, and at the time they told me five hours was the average. I'm sure it's gotten faster, but that would be HUGE reduction. (There's also lots of variability between patients - some procedures are much more difficult than others. And so, unfortunately, are the outcomes - something like 2% of the time it won't reach and you end up with a permanent colostomy bag.)

That said, I do agree about this being little more than an upgrade. They cut out polyps using a coloscope all the time. And as another example, they leave a stent in the newly-connected ureter after a kidney transplant, then after three weeks they go in with a cystoscope, locate it, and send in a little pincer thingie to grab it and pull it out. It's completely routine and actually pretty cool to watch. (Oh, and not all urologists have switched to using the scope. Some still use a stiff metal rod. Not speaking from personal experience or anything like that here, but my advice is if your doc gets out the rod to get the hell out of there and find a new urologist.)

Re:Endoscope pincers (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899253)

Depends on your disease process. A total proctocolectomy for severe ulcerative colitis is a very different procedure with very different goals from those of a total colectomy for a mass, and the vast majority of people who have tumors have hemicolectomies. Yes, if you have to eliminate every bit of colorectal tissue, it's a more complicated procedure, but tumors don't generally call for that, and rectal tumors often get (at least temporary) colostomies - you don't want the stress of chemo on a brand new anastomosis down there.

Re:Endoscope pincers (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899323)

Makes sense. In my case the colectomy was because dysplastic cells had shown up, meaning cancer was inevitable. And I did have a temporary colostomy that was removed after a couple of months - they called it the "takedown" procedure.

Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897275)

Endoscopic surgery can be better or worse, but the bigger thing is to make sure you have a good surgeon, either way. For stomach cancer, there is some variation in approaches (what chemo follow-up or even pre-surgery, etc...), and I don't think there's anything conclusive on which manner of surgery is better in terms of open v. endoscopic.

That being said, there is divergent data on what procedure to follow in terms of the number of nodes to remove. Radical lymphadonectomies are almost certainly better, but there is data on both sides and a sizable number of people believe that removing only a very few nodes is indicated. (This is skewed by the fact that people tend to be lazy, that kind of operation takes a lot more work, and conclusive data supporting it didn't exist for a long time and some would argue still does not). Obviously, check the research yourself if you are competent to read the studies, or just find someone at the top of the field in terms of ability, rather than reputation, and do whatever they say.

(This is hard. Look for someone who does a lot of operations that are really really hard. Huge experience in stomach cancer is great, but can be hard to find depending on where you are in the world. Someone who is great at pancreatic cancer surgery may also do well.)

All the while.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897289)

.... causing hundreds or thousands of cancer cells to be released into the patient's bloodstream from each blob of cancer tissue that it slices away from the stomach lining. But then most surgical techniques that don't additionally remove a fair amount of the non-cancerous surrounding tissue as well as the cancer tissue, tend to also release a bunch of cancer cells into the bloodstream where they can wander around to find a new spot to set up camp.

Better hope the followup radiation and/or chemo finishes off those little campers.

Re:All the while.... (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899037)

Yeah, I was wondering about it's ability to implement wide margins myself. I don't know that much about stomach cancer, but with colon cancer there are good reasons why they do hemi or total colectomies. In fact if I remember correctly in ulcerative colitis cancer tends to show up in calm regions adjacent to the inflamed parts.

Dr. Zoidberg approves (2)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897515)


Wow... (0)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897547)

I read that backwards. I thought it said, "Stomach cancer robots help remove crabs." That would be useful to me right now.

Re:Wow... (3, Funny)

Mursk (928595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897643)

Then, once the stomach cancer robots get rid of the crabs, we simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the cancer robots.

Craaaabbb robots (1)

derfy (172944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897863)

Craaabbbb robots
Craaabbbb robots
Taste like crab,
operate like robot.

Crab Battle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38897901)

Kojima needs to put this in the next Metal Gear game. "It's... some kind of demon!"


Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898095)

This is a pet peeve of mine. This is not a robot. This is not an autonomous device. This is a remote control device.

"The Crabs"? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898141)

Can it cure "the crabs", or will that cause Recursionitus*?

* which also causes Recursionitus**

** which also causes Recursionitus***

*** which also causes Recursionitus*

Did anyone else... (2)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898241)

Did anyone else read that as 'crap robot'? Guys?

Good to see (1)

Luveno (575425) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898447)

I lost my wife to stomach cancer.

Although this would not have saved her (she had traditional surgery to have most of her stomach removed), one thing I noticed through the entire journey was that the research was geared towards more common cancers, like breast and colon. I'm happy to see that treatments of other cancers still being pursued.

I've played this game before :) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38898503)

I'm fairly certain this kind of thing was seen in "The microscopic mission" and similar idea with the film "Innerspace"

That said, this is rather cool. Pretty soon you'll see video-gamer types paired with doctors to do stuff like this, where the gamer gets everything setup and the doctor does the surgical work.

Need a surgeon? (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898779)

Why not Zoidberg? He's cheaper than some boloney robot!

Exit, Stage Left! (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | about 2 years ago | (#38900885)

" enters the patient's gut through the mouth."

<involuntary visual of it leaving like a chest-burster>

Um, NO WAY (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#38902583)

I AM NOT LETTING A FUCKING CRAB crawl into my stomach unless it is bearing a payload of melted butter and maybe a bit of green onion.

(sigh) (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 2 years ago | (#38903095)

The link in the summary only shows a real crab photo. Clearly this device is not a real crab. Anyone else curious to know what the ACTUAL device looks like can see in this other article, first google search link. []

So in other words (1)

wormout (2558092) | about 2 years ago | (#38906295)

A miniature friendly crab attacks the tumours weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE

I know someone... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921093)

I know someone who has late stage stomach cancer, and this technique could have made a difference had it been available earlier.... he is now sitting in hospital, and I feel for his family. I wish they could maybe make this information and techniques available quicker to other doctors. Why the hell did google ever stop its medical movement??? At least maybe when facebook gets involved, they wont stop until it is reality.

Who will help bring about the information real time to doctors first???

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>