Could a microchip help to diagnose cancer in minutes?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Current cancer screening often requires painful procedures and weeks of waiting to obtain results. But what if doctors could read a biological sample with a small hand-held device and come back with an answer in less than an hour?

A group of researchers has developed a device that can detect even low levels of certain biomarkers associated with cancer, according to a paper published yesterday in Nature Nanotechnology (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"Today, it takes a room filled with computers to evaluate a clinically relevant sample of cancer biomarkers and the results aren't quickly available," Shana Kelley, a professor at the University of Toronto's schools of medicine and pharmacy and lead investigator on the project, said in a prepared statement. "Our team was able to measure biomolecules on an electronic chip the size of your fingertip."

By shrinking the equipment to a device the size of a BlackBerry, as the researchers propose, "we could do a lot more screening in the future," Kelley told Bloomberg News. Kelley and her team hope that the microchip technology, which uses electrodes and nucleic acid sensors engineered on a nanoscale to detect even diffuse traces of cancer, will be able to find not only the presence of cancer in patients but also its kind and severity.

Even though a rush of recent research has uncovered many new cancer biomarkers, in the lab, clinicians aren't often able to test for every known signal. As Kelley explained to Canada's National Post: "We don't look for as many molecular markers as we actually could when doing clinical diagnosis of things like cancer because it's too expensive to do the analysis."

The researchers have tested the technology on biopsy samples, but have yet to fine-tune it for clinical screening. They hope to have it ready for commercial use—at least in Canada—within the next five years. Tough-to-beat cancers, for which current screening is lacking, such as prostate cancer, will be the first targets, although, Kelley noted, it could also prove useful in diagnosing infectious diseases.

Slides of pancreatic cancer such as this one may no longer be necessary for screening if doctors can rely more on high-powered and portable processing to pick up on key cancer biomarkers (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/NIH)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe