Cancers can be detected in bloodstream three years prior to diagnosis
Cancers can be detected in bloodstream three years prior to diagnosis
hub.jhu.edu
Cancers can be detected in bloodstream three years prior to diagnosis
25 comments
-
-
I thought cancer comes a goes all the time, wouldn't that give a lot of people false positives and a start to the cascade of healthcare?
-
Not really, no. It's only really cancer once the cells multiply uncontrollably. Yes, sometimes cells don't properly perform apoptosis, but there are other mechanisms that will target and kill those precancerous cells. Only once those other mechanisms fail does it become true cancer.
Besides, even if this test did come back positive, they'd still have to identify a tumor and monitor. If you have a teeny-tiny benign tumor that isn't hurting anything, the best course of action is to just leave it alone and monitor. Any surgical procedure risks spillage, which is basically human-induced metastasis.
-
The article says they're detecting DNA shedding of genetic mutations. I think one example of this could be cancer caused by HPV should shed DNA that they could identify.
It's probably different but that's what I'm thinking from that line
-
Look up extra-cellular vesicles. This is where the magic is.
-
-
-
Can someone clarify which blood test was used? I want to get tested every two years.
-
just go to an oncologist and get screened
source: i did cancer
-
-
Yes but, is it profitable?
Someone has to ask the real world questions
-
If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.
-
-
Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives
They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is
That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak
Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting
25 comments
What? This BETTER not be US funded Research! I DONT want MY Tax Dollars going to THIS when there's SAD BILLIONAIRES still out there!
-LITERALLY everyone who Voted for Trump!
Trump also got the covid vaccine invented, produced, and distributed. It was probably the greatest thing he ever did but now he doesn't even want to be associated with it. Alas. His lunacy knows no bounds.
Yes and no, warp speed only needed to exist in the form it did because Trump had fired the existing pandemic response team.
Why should the world benefit from our taxpayer funded research? I want my taxes spent on training Americans so as to let the world watch (for free) fast running and swimming.
Am still waiting for a skipping event in the Olympics.
The world isn't benefitting from your research, you benefit from the world's research based off your own research, on and on it goes and we all get smarter and know more and strive towards bettering our condition, curing our ills and minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for all.
At least in my opinion it's why scientific research while a truly neutral morally activity and generally done as an end unto itself - from a broadly humanist standpoint - is worth pursuing, even when the immediate benefits aren't seen by the shortsighted.