3 ms·
The issue is that there's no follow-up test, at the moment. The cancer is otherwise undetectable. ...and the test does not determine location, so it's impossi
by koheripbal 6y ago
The issue is that there's no follow-up test, at the moment. The cancer is otherwise undetectable.
...and the test does not determine location, so it's impossible to treat even with a positive test.
So from a clinical standpoint it's nearly useless, except to schedule patients for more frequent traditional testing. ...the counter point is that the stress caused to a patient is probably not trivial, even from a physical health perspective.
...but from a scientific standpoint, it's awesome and well worth further study.
- IshKebab 6y ago> except to schedule patients for more frequent traditional testing That sounds very useful to me!
- psychometry 6y agoYou actually could potentially determine location by examining mutation patterns, both by looking more closely at methylation and doing further sequencing of cell-free DNA.
- abcc8 6y agoI imagine that there will be a longitudinal trial for this test. Individuals will be tested at set intervals and the test results will be correlated with clinical outcomes. It is possible that enough blood samples have already been collected such these same correlates could be identified retrospectively.
- mNovak 6y ago>> Nearly useless Being able to catch a cancer early on because of increased surveillance is hugely valuable. Part of why cancer is so dangerous is because it often grows/spreads for years before you get any symptoms. If you're in the unlucky cohort of <50 years old and have an asymptomatic cancer, it might go decades before anyone thinks to check. And mind, increased surveillance typically means once a year tests or scans, so it's not so overly onerous. It's possible even that generally being in frequent contact with doctors and more seriously minding your health could have net benefits in preventing other maladies as well.