4 ms·

> They all literally share the same DNA, they can't be that different. They share the same DNA in the sense that every cell in that body does. But the differen

> They all literally share the same DNA, they can't be that different. They share the same DNA in the sense that every cell in that body does. But the different types of cancers have different mutations per cell type and the increasingly precise identification of those is the basis of the recent new treatment options. Histological classifications become less and less relevant, instead mutations and subtypes of mutations give directions for treatment paths. So I think that statement is a bit confusing.

bboygravity 3y ago
There are also cancers where the root cause is not a cell suddenly stopped functioning properly out of nowhere but instead the rootcause is a virus/chemical (that may or may not still be present in the body/cells).
haldujai 3y ago
> Histological classifications become less and less relevant What do you mean by "histological classification" because every interpretation I can think of is very incorrect.
- miramba 3y ago
  I meant that every cancer diagnosis is done by a pathologist who describes the looks of the cell/tissue and is trained to assign a cancer classification to it. This is currently changing to genetic testing where the underlying mutation (that is causing the tissue changes) is identified. AFAIK the tissue classification is still the gold standard for most cancer types, but I am positive that this will be completely replaced by the new methods. Medicine will not put the cells under a microscope anymore but into a DNA analyzer instead.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    That's incorrect. If you mean diagnosing the type of cancer (e.g. clear cell renal cell carcinoma) we've already been using molecular markers for over a decade now. Since you mention "describing the look": mitotic rate and local staging (depth of invasion, lymphovascular invasion, perineurial invasion) matter far more than any DNA/type of cancer and this isn't changing at all nor will it ever change.

bboygravity 3y ago

There are also cancers where the root cause is not a cell suddenly stopped functioning properly out of nowhere but instead the rootcause is a virus/chemical (that may or may not still be present in the body/cells).

haldujai 3y ago

> Histological classifications become less and less relevant What do you mean by "histological classification" because every interpretation I can think of is very incorrect.

miramba 3y ago
I meant that every cancer diagnosis is done by a pathologist who describes the looks of the cell/tissue and is trained to assign a cancer classification to it. This is currently changing to genetic testing where the underlying mutation (that is causing the tissue changes) is identified. AFAIK the tissue classification is still the gold standard for most cancer types, but I am positive that this will be completely replaced by the new methods. Medicine will not put the cells under a microscope anymore but into a DNA analyzer instead.
- haldujai 3y ago
  That's incorrect. If you mean diagnosing the type of cancer (e.g. clear cell renal cell carcinoma) we've already been using molecular markers for over a decade now. Since you mention "describing the look": mitotic rate and local staging (depth of invasion, lymphovascular invasion, perineurial invasion) matter far more than any DNA/type of cancer and this isn't changing at all nor will it ever change.