STEREOMETRIX CORPORATION --------> Computer Aided Diagnosis for Medical Imaging
675 N. 1st Street
Suite 700
San Jose, CA 95112
Ph: (408)975-7660
FAX (408)975-7679

PRESS RELEASE                                   Media Contact: Bob Chapman

                          BREAKTHROUGH IN COMPUTER-AIDED
                        {*filter*} CANCER DIAGNOSIS TECHNOLOGY

                Accuracy 95% With False Indications Reduced to Negligible Level

San Jose, April 26, 1995 - Stereometrix Corporation is in the final stage of
completing technology for early and accurate detection of {*filter*} cancer. A
recent breakthrough has resulted in a significant improvement in system
performance. False positive indications (like false alarms) have now been
reduced to near zero. False positives occur in both manual and computerized
x-ray reading from borderline cases and film artifacts. Dr. K.C. Saxena, Ph.D.,
Stereometrix's founder and developer of the technology, states that the updated
Mammogram Viewstation 5000 computer-aided-diagnosis system will be ready for
clinical trials in the near future. The company is presently Alpha testing
the new software which incorporates the breakthrough technology. This recent
development makes the system much more suitable for {*filter*} cancer mass
screening programs to combat this deadly disease.

Dr. Saxena, a well known photogrammetrist and mathematician, said that the
technology he developed over the past several years has been derived from a
combination of sciences including mathematics, statistics, image processing
and photogrammetry. The keys to success are the novel mathematical algorithms
and filters which are able to highlight, extract and classify small features
of clinical interest hidden or obliterated by other soft tissues, {*filter*} vessels
and densities present in mammogram x-rays. The classification algorithms are
derived from the criteria used by noted radiologists. They are able to
distinguish potential malignancies from benign features and reject film
artifacts and characteristics which resemble masses.

Some computerized mammographic interpretation techniques being investigated
have the possibility of losing elements of vital {*filter*} cancer information
on the x-ray. Dr. Saxena believes that such methods will not be able to reliably
detect or classify small size or early stage cancers. Stereometrix rejected
simplistic approaches early in its research and has concentrated on developing
a technology in which very obscure and small cancer-like features can be
detected. This has resulted in a system whose detection and location accuracy
significantly exceeds that achieved by other workers in this field. In addition,
the system and its user interface have been designed for efficient integration
into the clinical environment.

In preliminary testing, the ViewStation 5000's patented software technology
demonstrated a 95% accuracy rate in detecting pathologically confirmed
(biopsied) potentially malignant microcalcifications and masses on more than
400 mammograms. Detection accuracies for manual (visual) reading of the
x-rays typically range from 70% - 90%. The system is also capable of detecting
very small features - thus aiding earlier detection of {*filter*} cancer. The new
breakthrough discovery's reduction of false positives to an insignificant level
may also help reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.

{*filter*} cancer kills 46,000 American women every year and costs the U.S. health
care system $3.8 billion annually. Increased diagnostic accuracy is expected to
ultimately save lives and reduce medical costs.

Located in San Jose, California, Stereometrix Corporation develops advanced
image analysis technology software. Its present focus in medical applications
is to deliver increased diagnostic accuracy and improved patient outcomes.

                                        # # #

==============================================================================
Any e-mail enquiries resulting from this posting will be forwarded to
Stereometrix Corp. by this individual without any obligations to either
party.
==============================================================================

  Recovery time and risks are greatest with general anesthesia.
  The overall risk is low for someone who's relatively young
  [I'm 39] and presumably healthy, but if something does go
  wrong, the patient likely just doesn't wake up.  

  The overall risk with spinal anesthesia is lower than for GA,
  but if something goes wrong, the result is more likely to be
  disability than death.  Also, recovery can be uncomfortable in
  the short term ("splitting headache" was the description).

  The overall risk with local anesthetic is lowest.  The big
  disadvantage is that a local anesthetic will not be effective
  in keeping the patient comfortable (and, perhaps, quiet :-) )
  during surgery.

So, what I want to know is this:

  Is the above reasonably accurate and complete?  Can anyone be more
  specific about comparative risks, perhaps backed up by some
  guesstimate odds?

  What exactly is involved in spinal anesthesia?  as I understand
  it, it seems to involve injecting something into the spinal fluid,
  which to this layperson seems like not such a good idea.  

My orthopedist seems to favor spinal anesthesia, and at first that
sounded good to me (anything but GA!), but after getting an inkling
about the possible risks, I'm very tempted to try to talk him into
doing this with a local.  

I'd appreciate information and/or advice.  If you think this topic is
not of general interest, feel free to reply via e-mail.  If I'm taxing
the patience of you kind and knowledgeable souls, feel free to point
me to a good layperson's medical reference and tell me to RTFM.

Thanks in advance!

--
Berna Massingill

As for an arthroscopy, most patients are young and the majority of these
patients are not keen on a local technique.  A proportion of surgeons
are not used to operating under such conditions and finally, I know that
a majority of patients will have undue discomfort for just using local
infiltration for this operation.  The best choice for this procedure
would be spinal or epidural anaesthesia.
         .    
     ,--_|\        Wilson Lim

    *_,--\_/       Live long and prosper
          v      +---------------------------------------------------+

:   Recovery time and risks are greatest with general anesthesia.

Actually, recovery times from spinal/epidural anesthesia are probably
just as long, if not longer, as you have to wait around for the block to
wear off. There is no evidence that spinals are safer than general
anaesthetics.

:   The overall risk is low for someone who's relatively young
    [I'm 39] and presumably healthy, but if something does go
:   wrong, the patient likely just doesn't wake up.  
    The overall risk with spinal anesthesia is lower than for GA,
:   but if something goes wrong, the result is more likely to be
:   disability than death.

:   The overall risk with local anesthetic is lowest.  The big
:   disadvantage is that a local anesthetic will not be effective
:   in keeping the patient comfortable (and, perhaps, quiet :-) )
:   during surgery.

: So, what I want to know is this:

:   Is the above reasonably accurate and complete?  Can anyone be more
:   specific about comparative risks, perhaps backed up by some
:   guesstimate odds?

As I said before, there is no evidence that spinals are safer than
general anaesthetics. Whether arthroscopic surgery can be done under
local usually depends on the skill of the surgeon. If I were having it
done, I would go for a GA.
   :
    What exactly is involved in spinal anesthesia?  as I understand
:   it, it seems to involve injecting something into the spinal fluid,
:   which to this layperson seems like not such a good idea.  

: My orthopedist seems to favor spinal anesthesia, and at first that
: sounded good to me (anything but GA!), but after getting an inkling
: about the possible risks, I'm very tempted to try to talk him into
: doing this with a local.  

The risk of a headache is probably less than 3%, but the headache can be
very annoying. Most go away in a day or two, the rest can be fixed.

Hope this helps

Keith Drader MD
Resident in Anaesthesia
University of Alberta, Edmonton

Dear Chris, Kathryn, Berna & Interested Others:

We smugly surround ourselves with hi-tech equipment (WE ARE BEST, RIGHT?),
yet nerve block induced anesthesia with the accupuncture-meridian interface
has been used for a few thousand years. Ancient chinese wisdom is that
"when going looks like coming back, the clearest road is mighty dark".  
How about INSTITUTING CLINICAL ROTATIONS IN COMPLIMENTARY MEDICINE
APPLICATIONS IN CHRONIC AND ACUTE PATIENT MANAGEMENT that includes the
accupuncture-meridian interface? From a historical prospective, we are the
ones practicing complimentary pharmaceutical medicine while the chinese
system is mainstream. Also, I know of no reasons why accupuncture in theory
and practice cannot be taught to graduate anesthesiologists who are willing
to listen, learn the meridian system and be trained and certified in the
various accupuncture techniques.  Accupuncture is a system that really
shines in inducing anesthesia in many types of cases (not all), without the
problem of drug side effects. Will we ever learn that different medical
systems, each, have something to offer in patient management;;LIFE DOES NOT
BEGIN AND END WITH EITHER A PRESCRIPTION PAD OR GAS/DRUG-INDUCED
ANESTHESIA. I hope and pray that there is somebody out there that works on
a medical school faculty that is reading this posting that is willing to
listen. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that one in three
Americans now use alternative therapies, making some 425 million visits  to
alternative medical practicioners every year.  Americans spend  close to
$14 billion dollars a year on alternative health care, 70% of which is out
of the pocket.  Worldwide, more than 80% of the Earth's population receive
their primary care through traditional and alternative medicine.  I have a
lot to learn, yet, about myself and the patients that I counsel..  Do you?
 We are all in this boat, together!!

From the cutting edge,  

(718) 460-3966, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, International
Association of Biomedical Gerontology, National Academy of Elder Law
Attorneys, American College of Clinical Gerontology, American Aging
Association, Life Extension Foundation, Trained: Psychoanalysis, Certified:
Mediation & Counseling, Certified: Functional Assessments & Interventions,
Art. 81, NY MHL, Certified: Interdisciplinary Geriatrics: Geriatric
Assessment, Columbia University--NY Geriatric Education Center