> 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. > Second

> 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?