Technological advancements in cancer diagnostics: Improvements and limitations

Abstract

Background: Cancer is characterized by the rampant proliferation, growth, and infiltration of malignantly transformed cancer cells past their normal boundaries into adjacent tissues. It is the leading cause of death worldwide, responsible for approximately 19.3 million new diagnoses and 10 million deaths globally in 2020. In the United States alone, the estimated number of new diagnoses and deaths is 1.9 million and 609 360, respectively. Implementation of currently existing cancer diagnostic techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), X-ray computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), and molecular diagnostic techniques, have enabled early detection rates and are instrumental not only for the therapeutic management of cancer patients, but also for early detection of the cancer itself. The effectiveness of these cancer screening programs are heavily dependent on the rate of accurate precursor lesion identification; an increased rate of identification allows for earlier onset treatment, thus decreasing the incidence of invasive cancer in the long-term, and improving the overall prognosis. Although these diagnostic techniques are advantageous due to lack of invasiveness and easier accessibility within the clinical setting, several limitations such as optimal target definition, high signal to background ratio and associated artifacts hinder the accurate diagnosis of specific types of deep-seated tumors, besides associated high cost. In this review we discuss various imaging, molecular, and low-cost diagnostic tools and related technological advancements, to provide a better understanding of cancer diagnostics, unraveling new opportunities for effective management of cancer, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).Recent Findings: Herein we discuss various technological advancements that are being utilized to construct an assortment of new diagnostic techniques that incorporate hardware, image reconstruction software, imaging devices, biomarkers, and even artificial intelligence algorithms, thereby providing a reliable diagnosis and analysis of the tumor. Also, we provide a brief account of alternative low cost-effective cancer therapy devices (CryoPop ® , LumaGEM ® , MarginProbe ® ) and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), emphasizing the need for multi-disciplinary

3D Printing for Cancer Diagnosis: What Unique Advantages Are Gained?

“…Also, 3D printing allows for the integration of multiple components into a single device . Traditional methods often require the assembly of various parts, which can be time-consuming and costly.…”

“…The detection of cancer biomarkers has traditionally relied on laboratory-based techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), , polymerase chain reaction (PCR), , and next-generation sequencing (NGS) . While these methods have significantly contributed to our understanding of cancer biology, they often require sophisticated equipment, specialized facilities, and considerable time and resources. , …”

Emerging Multifunctional Carbon‐Nanomaterial‐Based Biosensors for Cancer Diagnosis

“…Moreover, invasive biopsy and histopathological examination are employed to identify cancer types and determine their stages. [27] Although DOI: 10.1002/smsc.202300221 Despite significant advancements in medical technology, cancer remains the world's second-leading cause of death, largely attributed to late-stage diagnoses. While traditional cancer detection methodologies offer foundational insights, they often lack the specificity, affordability, and sensitivity for early-stage identification.…”

“…these methods have provided the foundation for cancer diagnosis and treatment, they are nonspecific, costly, and heavily dependent on the growth rate of cancer tumors. [27] In addition, a wide variety of techniques within the field of molecular biology, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, [28] radioimmunoassay, [29] immunohistochemistry, [30,31] flow cytometry, [32] and DNA/RNA-based hybridization/sequencing approaches, [33][34][35][36] have also been widely used to detect molecular signatures/biomarkers in cancer cells. Although current molecular diagnostic techniques have been clinically validated, they frequently exhibit low sensitivity, extended detection times, potential health risks, and the requirement for sophisticated equipment and skilled operators.…”

“…Moreover, invasive biopsy and histopathological examination are employed to identify cancer types and determine their stages. [ 27 ] Although these methods have provided the foundation for cancer diagnosis and treatment, they are nonspecific, costly, and heavily dependent on the growth rate of cancer tumors. [ 27 ] In addition, a wide variety of techniques within the field of molecular biology, such as enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, [ 28 ] radioimmunoassay, [ 29 ] immunohistochemistry, [ 30,31 ] flow cytometry, [ 32 ] and DNA/RNA‐based hybridization/sequencing approaches, [ 33–36 ] have also been widely used to detect molecular signatures/biomarkers in cancer cells.…”