Cancer Detection
In Situ Foundation has spent thousands of hours, spanning many years, developing the scientific protocols that are needed to train cancer detection dogs and their handlers.
WHAT WE DO
We have trained over 50 dogs in 12 years to detect cancer, including a group of
e.coli detection dogs for UTI infections in disabled people.
We use samples collected by doctors, which are sent to us and stored in an -80 degree medical freezer.
We have trained over 50 dogs in 12 years to detect cancer, including a group of
e.coli detection dogs for UTI infections in disabled people.
It takes over 300 samples to train one dog. All of our dogs are trained on cancer samples, healthy control samples, and disease control samples. It takes anywhere between 6 to 8 months to train and certify a cancer detection dog. Our dogs must also be friendly and social, since they will work with people. Dogs do not sniff an actual person — they sniff samples such as breath, plasma, urine and sputum (saliva).
Dogs are presented with a known cancer sample for training, and they are rewarded for being able to determine the cancer sample from the healthy samples. Over time, the odor of “cancer” is generalized, which is of extreme importance when training a medical scent detection dog. A very large number of samples are used, and we never re-use a sample for training or testing our dogs accuracy levels.
All accuracy levels were attained by doing “double-blinded” trials, where brand new samples are numbered, and the dog is able to find all of the new, different cancer samples among brand new healthy controls and disease controls. This way, we can be sure the dog has “generalized” the “cancer odor”, and is not merely memorizing samples.
In Situ Foundation created the first medical protocol for the selection, training, and handling of a medical scent detection dog. We plan to teach our protocol for cancer detection training around the globe, where there is a major need for early cancer detection.
Why We Do This
Cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the US, accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths (American Cancer Society). There are no accurate screening methods for the early detection of most types of cancer. Screening methods that exist today are costly, invasive, and produce a high amount of false positives.
False positives for cancer occur when a screening test finds something that looks like cancer, but turns out to be benign (not cancer). Some screening methods even cause more harm than good. The more mammograms a woman has, the more likely she is to have a false positive result that will require follow up tests. Studies have shown the chances of having a false positive result after 10 yearly mammograms are about 50 to 60 percent. (See more at: http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/)
In regards to prostate cancer, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends AGAINST prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screenings for prostate cancer. The benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer do not outweigh the negatives. The high likelihood of false-positive results from a PSA test, coupled with its inability to distinguish indolent from aggressive tumors, means that a substantial number of men undergo biopsy and are over-diagnosed with and over-treated for prostate cancer.