7 ms·

Again, absolutely absurd. Many cancers have no symptoms until it’s too late. Do you even understand this? At that point the choices for treatment are extremely

Again, absolutely absurd. Many cancers have no symptoms until it’s too late. Do you even understand this? At that point the choices for treatment are extremely limited. Even breast cancer needs x-rays to detect lumps, not detect cancer. You need a subsequent biopsy to differentiate. That’s our technology right now. If we had a blood test to detect cancer, not lumps, it’s game changing. Maybe after a generation of early detection, new outcomes will emerge if we can detect the most deadly cancers early. You’re taking old studies and applying them to new technologies and saying “it won’t work.” It’s ridiculous that you are doing this.

jacquesm 5y ago
Even if you detect cancer you will still need a biopsy to figure out which bits are the cancer and which bits are just 'lumps'. Yes, it is a game changer, but it is not the kind of game changer that this is being made out to be here and mass screening using this method is not going to lead to improved outcomes. As an extra tool in the toolbox of the diagnostician it is very useful.
- plank_time 5y ago
  It’s pretty easy. If blood test says “liver cancer positive. Colon cancer negative.” you check the liver for cancer. No need to check the colon for cancer. No need to scan the entire body for lumps.
  - graeme 5y ago
    Not that easy. “Check the liver for cancer” has lots of risks: surgery and the resulting tissue injury. I’m generally inclined towards the position of more testing....but there are very real tradeoffs to any of the interventions that a blood test could prompt.
    - jghn 5y ago
      Also, you might have identified liver cancer that came from the patient's kidney. Or a colorectal cancer that came from the patient's liver.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    What happens when it turns out that most of the people having surgery don't have cancer? Because that's the reality of tests with a .5% false positive rate if less than 1% of the population is positive.

jacquesm 5y ago

Even if you detect cancer you will still need a biopsy to figure out which bits are the cancer and which bits are just 'lumps'. Yes, it is a game changer, but it is not the kind of game changer that this is being made out to be here and mass screening using this method is not going to lead to improved outcomes. As an extra tool in the toolbox of the diagnostician it is very useful.

plank_time 5y ago
It’s pretty easy. If blood test says “liver cancer positive. Colon cancer negative.” you check the liver for cancer. No need to check the colon for cancer. No need to scan the entire body for lumps.
- graeme 5y ago
  Not that easy. “Check the liver for cancer” has lots of risks: surgery and the resulting tissue injury. I’m generally inclined towards the position of more testing....but there are very real tradeoffs to any of the interventions that a blood test could prompt.
  - jghn 5y ago
    Also, you might have identified liver cancer that came from the patient's kidney. Or a colorectal cancer that came from the patient's liver.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  What happens when it turns out that most of the people having surgery don't have cancer? Because that's the reality of tests with a .5% false positive rate if less than 1% of the population is positive.