Sofiene Mansouri1,2, Tareq Alhadidi1, Marwa Ben Azouz2. 1. College of Applied Medical Sciences, Department of Biomedical Technology, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia. 2. University of Tunis El Manar, Higher Institute of Medical Technologies of Tunis, Laboratory of Biophysics and Medical Technologies, Tunis 1009, Tunisia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early detection of breast cancer saves lives. Existing detecting techniques are invasive. Electrical bioimpedance is a noninvasive technique and has a high diagnostic potential. METHODS: An impedance value different from the normal can predict a physiological abnormality. The idea is to use a designed bioimpedance device to early detect breast cancer. A low-frequency current (1 kHz, 0.9 mA) is injected to each breast to measure the extracellular resistances. The resistances of the two breasts are then measured, and if there is a significant difference, warning is displayed. The performance was tested on a set of reference resistors, and the validation was done in vitro on (Na+Cl-) solutions and in vivo on a group of forty volunteer women. RESULTS: The results confirm that the electrical conductivity of an ionic solution is proportional to its concentration. The concentration and the resistance are strongly correlated (correlation coefficient of 0.97). The accuracy and the repeatability of the measures were satisfactory. Early detection means that we can detect small extracellular concentration variations into the breast (from 0.6 g/l). In vivo measurements made it possible to set the threshold at 50 ohm. If the difference between the two measured breast resistances is greater than this threshold, we advise the patient to consult a doctor promptly. CONCLUSION: The difference between measured resistances of the right and left breast is a pertinent parameter to early detect the presence of a cancer. The lowest resistance value (RR or RL) can provide information on the breast affected by the cancer (right or left). Various improvements in the system are possible but already the results are encouraging. In the future, this system could be integrated into a bra.
INTRODUCTION: Early detection of breast cancer saves lives. Existing detecting techniques are invasive. Electrical bioimpedance is a noninvasive technique and has a high diagnostic potential. METHODS: An impedance value different from the normal can predict a physiological abnormality. The idea is to use a designed bioimpedance device to early detect breast cancer. A low-frequency current (1 kHz, 0.9 mA) is injected to each breast to measure the extracellular resistances. The resistances of the two breasts are then measured, and if there is a significant difference, warning is displayed. The performance was tested on a set of reference resistors, and the validation was done in vitro on (Na+Cl-) solutions and in vivo on a group of forty volunteer women. RESULTS: The results confirm that the electrical conductivity of an ionic solution is proportional to its concentration. The concentration and the resistance are strongly correlated (correlation coefficient of 0.97). The accuracy and the repeatability of the measures were satisfactory. Early detection means that we can detect small extracellular concentration variations into the breast (from 0.6 g/l). In vivo measurements made it possible to set the threshold at 50 ohm. If the difference between the two measured breast resistances is greater than this threshold, we advise the patient to consult a doctor promptly. CONCLUSION: The difference between measured resistances of the right and left breast is a pertinent parameter to early detect the presence of a cancer. The lowest resistance value (RR or RL) can provide information on the breast affected by the cancer (right or left). Various improvements in the system are possible but already the results are encouraging. In the future, this system could be integrated into a bra.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: T Morimoto; S Kimura; Y Konishi; K Komaki; T Uyama; Y Monden; Y Kinouchi; T Iritani Journal: J Invest Surg Date: 1993 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Juan Carlos Gómez-Cortés; José Javier Díaz-Carmona; José Alfredo Padilla-Medina; Alejandro Espinosa Calderon; Alejandro Israel Barranco Gutiérrez; Marcos Gutiérrez-López; Juan Prado-Olivarez Journal: Micromachines (Basel) Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.523