4 ms·
My point is that there have already been a lot of results showing liquid biopsy misses a lot of the cancers in high risk populations. At this point theoretical
by dontreact 8y ago
My point is that there have already been a lot of results showing liquid biopsy misses a lot of the cancers in high risk populations. At this point theoretical estimates seem inferior as evidence than what we know so far from actually measuring.
At some point in the future we may understand more about what markers to look for in the blood and this may change but as of yet there are no "promising" results. Maybe I'm nitpicking but the concept of liquid biopsy is exciting and I hope it's something that humanity figures out how to do!
- sjg007 8y agoDo you have a reference I could check out? My point was this is looking at sequencing all of the cell free DNA and seeing post hoc if any of that data is predictive of some cancer developing. There are a wide number of issues taking that approach including it not being viable at all. Still it is an interesting data set. And as you state there are other biomarkers that may be more useful that still fall under the category of a liquid biopsy.. what we really mean here is something non-invasive like a blood draw. I was interested in the FP rate theoretically just cause it would be interesting to understanding the screening watchful waiting type approach vs what we have now.
- dontreact 8y ago43% of Stage I cancers detected, 33% of breast cancers detected and called "the best result so far" by this one science blogger (for breast imaging these numbers are usually around 90): https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/01/22/a-hard-look-at-liquid-biopsies https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/01/22/a-...