SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the earlier-detection-=-improved-outcome dept.
'Holy grail of cancer research': doctors positive about early detection blood test
A blood test for 10 different types of cancers could one day help doctors screen for the disease before patients show symptoms, researchers at the world's largest gathering of oncologists have said.
The test, called a liquid biopsy, screens for cancer by detecting tiny bits of DNA released by cancer cells into blood. The test had particularly good results for ovarian and pancreatic cancers, though the number of cancers detected was small.
Researchers hope the test will become part of a "universal screening" tool that doctors can use to detect cancer in patients.
"This is potentially the holy grail of cancer research, to find cancers that are currently hard to cure at an earlier stage when they are easier to cure," said Dr Eric Klein, lead author of the research from Cleveland Clinic's Taussig Cancer Institute. "We hope this test could save many lives."
Also at CNN.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:54AM
For a moment, Jackerson froze; someone was screaming for help, and he wasn't sure what course of action he should take. Ultimately, Jackerson chose to investigate the dark parking lot by himself. After running around for several minutes, he finally found the source of the screaming, and his eyes went wide. Jackerson screamed, "What's going on here!?"
An obese, naked man was on top of a naked little boy, brutally violating him. The naked man turned his head towards Jackerson and said, "Hehe! It's yummy yummy to my peepee!" Jackerson could not believe what he was witnessing, and his remained as wide as circles. Was it because what he was seeing was horrible? No. It was because it was so beautiful. What Jackerson was bearing witness to was the very definition of men's rights, and it brought a tear to his eyes.
"Alright, then, I'll leave you two lovebirds alone." Jackerson said, as he was preparing to depart. Even after walking some distance away, Jackerson could still clearly hear the little boy screaming. But after several seconds, a loud snapping sound was heard, and the child never screamed again...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @07:21AM (2 children)
"Give us more money, taxpayers."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @08:01AM (1 child)
Maybe. God knows there is reason for cynicism. But - SOME research has to be genuine research, and SOME of that results in medical breakthroughs. Hey, when I was a baby, the most "advanced" technology for monitoring health was an EKG. When I was in my twenties, a CAT scan was high tech. Today, both are old school, obsolete tech. Sonagrams, MRI's, and more - I'm not bothering to search for all the cool stuff they use today.
Thinking about it, it makes sense that cancers should leave tell-tale marks in your bloodstream. These people are only claiming that they've figured out how to find some of those marks.
Much better to give a blood sample to find out if you have cancer, than invasive exploratory surgery. It was as recently as the '70's when exploratory surgery was about the only option. The really advanced medical schools offered biopsies, but even those required rather invasive sample taking.
Let's hope this one is genuine research.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:16AM
Once the test gets sensitive enough they will discover that cancer cell lineages are forming and resolving (either self destruct, enter senescence, or get killed by the immune system) all the time.
Since armitage and doll came up with the multistage theory (1954) a big assumption has been that tumorigenesis is the rate limiting step (rather than surviving to the point of causing problems for the host) and its funny because they only did that to make the math easier in the pre computer age. Bad base assumptions like that are why cancer researchers have largely given up, saying its so super duper complex and not even a single disease anymore and that's why we can't cure it. A perfect example of one of Lakatos' degenerating research programmes.
(Score: 1) by sonamchauhan on Monday June 04 2018, @08:00AM (4 children)
If, instead of a cheek swab, i sent a blood sample to 23andme.com, would my DNA dump have anything to detect cancer? Or is it the whole genetic sequencing versus genetic typing at play again here?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:06AM
This is like going to a lake and sequencing a sample to find out about all of the critters living in it. Except it's a lake of your own blood and the critters are mutants.
Even if 23andme could offer this service, they might not want to if it exposes them to more regulations.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:18AM
No, what you are getting back is going to be an average sequence from many cells. Each cell is unique and that particular sequence probably wont even exist in your body.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday June 04 2018, @01:45PM (1 child)
only if you are very unlucky - the disorders with know markers are (by definition) implicated directly in disease, and are not so treatable.
It *can* help for diseases like Breast cancer (BRCA genes), but the treatment seems to still be double mastectomy (re. A Jolie's public disclosure).
The biopsy might improve with time, if antibodies can be developed to cellular targets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @02:57PM
Are they even sure whether these "breast cancer" genes are actually "melanoma genes":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17004106 [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28940260 [nih.gov]