3 ms·

Apologies for my enthusiastic interruption. I am deeply intrigued by this ctDNA work using electrical signal detection. However, I see two challenges with curre

Apologies for my enthusiastic interruption. I am deeply intrigued by this ctDNA work using electrical signal detection. However, I see two challenges with current early detection liquid biopsy methods. Firstly, they target signals that are inherently rare in blood (less than 1% of any blood volume). Secondly, they focus on either cfDNA or ctDNA, indicating that cancer has already progressed significantly or spread to other areas. In this context, I strongly believe that our approach positions us as one of the most captivating players in this field. We aim to leverage the immune response as an indicator of the body's cancer status. By harnessing the highly effective detectors within the immune system, we actively pursue cancer detection. Additionally, relying solely on specific biomarkers seems reminiscent of manually curating features, akin to the early days of NLP when compared to modern transformers. We are eager to share some of our methodologies and eagerly seek collaboration with professionals from diverse backgrounds, including genomics, wet lab scientists, bioinformatics experts, as well as AI and full stack engineers. Although we are currently in stealth mode and cannot divulge extensive details, we would be thrilled to engage with inquisitive and enthusiastic scientists. In some ways, we believe that our approach may also enable us to validate the efforts of the prominent players in the field of multi-cancer early detection. For further discussions, please feel free to reach us at qubind@qubind.com.

haldujai 3y ago
> Firstly, they target signals that are inherently rare in blood (less than 1% of any blood volume). That's one of the advantages of this technique. > Secondly, they focus on either cfDNA or ctDNA, indicating that cancer has already progressed significantly or spread to other areas. This isn't really accurate and is a bit misleading. For starters cf/ctDNA can be detected in stage I disease (and some limited reports of in situ). It's hard to compare studies or assess accuracy in early stage diseases as methodology is very variable and sample sizes aren't great yet. Ongoing trials will give more info. The method described here isn't only for MCED testing, the more significant advancement is in disease monitoring and treatment response with the idea that we would be able to detect treatment failures and mutations earlier and easier with high fidelity. Speaking about "liquid biopsies" and MCED in general, there still isn't really anything compelling to support this approach (for cancers that have screening tests available), we don't have nearly enough data to have an informed opinion on yield, benefit, and cost. Preliminary results have been underwhelming in terms of positivity rates, PPV and specificity. > We aim to leverage the immune response as an indicator of the body's cancer status. By harnessing the highly effective detectors within the immune system, we actively pursue cancer detection. Additionally, relying solely on specific biomarkers seems reminiscent of manually curating features, akin to the early days of NLP when compared to modern transformers. Does this actually mean anything? It reads as a bunch of marketing hype. Do you have a reference about the "highly effective detectors within the immune system" one might harness?
rdmirza 3y ago
I think you’re spot on about the clear advantage of your approach relative to the article and blood biopsies: If you’re looking for cancer in the blood, you’re probably too late as this suggests metastatic spread. You suggest something better: look for tissue level markers. The immunotherapy revolution (ie CTLA/PD1 molecules), you’ll recognize that leveraging the immune system is brilliantly effective. Presumably stealth genes do not evolve first, but rather proliferative genes. And this is why any chronic damage triggers cancer because renewal is a replicative process, and replications begets copy errors. wanderers and passersby will have to recognize I’m simplifying. I have a great lateral. Not sure if you have the funds to try two things, but TCR characterization is a wonderful idea. At least thats the best way to do it, as I see it. has many application beyond cancer Good luck!
- didgeoridoo 3y ago
  > If you’re looking for cancer in the blood, you’re probably too late as this suggests metastatic spread. Isn’t the point of cfDNA that you can pick up “dead” DNA fragments floating around long before you have viable cancer cells drifting through the bloodstream and lymphatic system?
  - mbreese 3y ago
    Yes. Normal cells break apart all the time. If you measure total cfDNA amount in a blood sample, you'll find significantly a higher cfDNA concentration after you exercise. It's a normal part of the wear and tear of cells. So, if you find cfDNA from a tumor, it's not necessarily indicative of metastatic spread... just that the tumor cells have been broken up. It could be from too much growth, or immune attack, or metastasis, or... etc. cfDNA is great in that you can run a single assay to cover the entire body. cfDNA is difficult because your single assay covers the entire body. You can't localize the source of cfDNA.

haldujai 3y ago

> Firstly, they target signals that are inherently rare in blood (less than 1% of any blood volume). That's one of the advantages of this technique. > Secondly, they focus on either cfDNA or ctDNA, indicating that cancer has already progressed significantly or spread to other areas. This isn't really accurate and is a bit misleading. For starters cf/ctDNA can be detected in stage I disease (and some limited reports of in situ). It's hard to compare studies or assess accuracy in early stage diseases as methodology is very variable and sample sizes aren't great yet. Ongoing trials will give more info. The method described here isn't only for MCED testing, the more significant advancement is in disease monitoring and treatment response with the idea that we would be able to detect treatment failures and mutations earlier and easier with high fidelity. Speaking about "liquid biopsies" and MCED in general, there still isn't really anything compelling to support this approach (for cancers that have screening tests available), we don't have nearly enough data to have an informed opinion on yield, benefit, and cost. Preliminary results have been underwhelming in terms of positivity rates, PPV and specificity. > We aim to leverage the immune response as an indicator of the body's cancer status. By harnessing the highly effective detectors within the immune system, we actively pursue cancer detection. Additionally, relying solely on specific biomarkers seems reminiscent of manually curating features, akin to the early days of NLP when compared to modern transformers. Does this actually mean anything? It reads as a bunch of marketing hype. Do you have a reference about the "highly effective detectors within the immune system" one might harness?

rdmirza 3y ago

I think you’re spot on about the clear advantage of your approach relative to the article and blood biopsies: If you’re looking for cancer in the blood, you’re probably too late as this suggests metastatic spread. You suggest something better: look for tissue level markers. The immunotherapy revolution (ie CTLA/PD1 molecules), you’ll recognize that leveraging the immune system is brilliantly effective. Presumably stealth genes do not evolve first, but rather proliferative genes. And this is why any chronic damage triggers cancer because renewal is a replicative process, and replications begets copy errors. wanderers and passersby will have to recognize I’m simplifying. I have a great lateral. Not sure if you have the funds to try two things, but TCR characterization is a wonderful idea. At least thats the best way to do it, as I see it. has many application beyond cancer Good luck!

didgeoridoo 3y ago
> If you’re looking for cancer in the blood, you’re probably too late as this suggests metastatic spread. Isn’t the point of cfDNA that you can pick up “dead” DNA fragments floating around long before you have viable cancer cells drifting through the bloodstream and lymphatic system?
- mbreese 3y ago
  Yes. Normal cells break apart all the time. If you measure total cfDNA amount in a blood sample, you'll find significantly a higher cfDNA concentration after you exercise. It's a normal part of the wear and tear of cells. So, if you find cfDNA from a tumor, it's not necessarily indicative of metastatic spread... just that the tumor cells have been broken up. It could be from too much growth, or immune attack, or metastasis, or... etc. cfDNA is great in that you can run a single assay to cover the entire body. cfDNA is difficult because your single assay covers the entire body. You can't localize the source of cfDNA.