15 ms·
Proteins in blood could provide early cancer warning 'by more than seven years'
- anonzzzies 2y agoHope we found a lot of these type of things. 7 years is a big win.
- ekanes 2y agoCompared to most cancer-related findings, this seems clear, simple and easy to replicate / disprove. Hopefully quickly, as it'd be a huge win for humanity.
- unsupp0rted 2y agoOh boy, I hope one of those markers is for Pancreatic. That's the/a silent killer.
- adamors 2y agoIt isn't unfortunately > Little evidence for protein associations was observed in these data for cancers of the pancreas, thyroid, lip and oral cavity, or melanoma after correcting for multiple tests From the study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6
- anotherpaulg 2y agoThe Galleri blood test claims to pick up pancreatic cancer early. Which I agree, is one which would be great to find early. > More aggressive cancers, such as pancreatic cancer, tend to release more cell-free DNA into the bloodstream at early stages and are more likely to be detected by the Galleri test. https://www.galleri.com/hcp/galleri-test-performance https://www.galleri.com/hcp/galleri-test-performance
- arrosenberg 2y agoCA 19-9 is the marker everyone is look at for Panc.
- nerdjon 2y agoAm I crazy in thinking that we heard about this several years ago? Is this just a continuation of that study or am I mis-remembering/my timeline way off? This is really exciting though, especially when mixed with other cancer treatments the ability to catch and deal with this is fascinating. How long until a theoretical, "Oh we detected some cancer cells in your regular blood work, here is a shot to deal with it" like we treat many other things.
- jemmyw 2y agoYou're not crazy, I recall a similar story too.
- graywh 2y agowe've been searching for blood biomarkers for cancer for decades -- I'm sure we've found several by now
- yieldcrv 2y agowith the addition of an mRNA treatment approach I'm willing to think 8 years off from at least a dozen cancers that currently only get detected after they've metastasized.
- nextos 2y agoYou've been hearing about ctDNA. Which is really interesting and predictive. But it is hard to tune so that it is practical enough to be deployed in routine healthcare. Efforts so far have not been sensitive or specific enough.
- blindriver 2y agoHow does this differ from the GRAIL blood tests?
- epistasis 2y agoGrail is looking at DNA methylation sites, this is looking at proteins. GRAIL is available today, this test will need to be validated and commercialized
- blindriver 2y agoThank you
- forinti 2y agoAnd how are you going to find the source?
- _xerces_ 2y agoYou're right, these proteins could be associated with conditions that can later lead to mutations that cause cells to become cancerous, but they don't point to a specific cancer. Interestingly they hint at modifying the proteins to reduce the likelihood of getting something, but that could be risk in itself. A lifestyle change could be helpful in some cases. I suppose if you have enough of these markers they could schedule routine testing earlier than usual, say 40 instead of 45 for colonoscopy, mammogram, etc.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stuff4ben 2y agoHow long before that becomes a mandatory test to get health insurance? Or somehow the data is bought by insurers who then use it to jack up the rates for those who will eventually get cancer. God I hate the US healthcare system!
- DennisP 2y agoInsurance companies haven't been allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions since 2014, due to Obamacare. They can't even raise premiums. The only variables are age, sex, smoking, and where you live. This applies both to employer plans and the ACA plans on healthcare.gov, where you can get a quote without giving them any health data at all.
- bonton89 2y agoIs there anything stopping an employer from pretesting you to avoid adding a potentially expensive employee to their roster?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 2y agoGenerally it runs aground with things like the ADA because you can't just "accidentally" find out the person has a covered condition, you're just never allowed to ask or require it be told. Exceptions for something like an airline pilot on matters related to the job like sight notwithstanding. This is why you always see things like "can lift up to 40 lbs" type requirements instead.
- Koala_ice 2y agoBut, you can get absolutely destroyed on life insurance and, just as critically, long-term care insurance. Genetic discrimination is perfectly legal in those domains.
- qclibre22 2y ago
- tombert 2y agoThis is cool, though I do wonder if the tests will be good enough to differentiate between “cancers that will be lethal in the next seven years” and “cancers that are technically there but will take so long to kill you that something else will beforehand anyway”.
- two_handfuls 2y agoAlso “cancers that your body takes care of on its own”
- tracker1 2y agoQuarterly fasts ftw.
- Jedd 2y ago> .. though I do wonder if the tests will be good enough .. Sure .. but .. a) knowing that cancer is there, but you may get hit by a bus before it kills you, can still inform some medical care decisions b) the 12 authors of that paper have probably put a bit of thought into the usefulness and efficacy of this kind of very early detection, and concluded it was worth reporting on their research
- tombert 2y agoI don't dispute either of your points. It was a genuine mere curiosity on my end, not a rhetorical "gotcha!". I've just heard that for stuff like prostate cancer, a diagnosis can be misleading, because sometimes it can take 20+ years to kill you. If you get it when you're 70, it's probably not worth going through surgery or chemo because you'll likely die of heart disease or another cancer before that anyway.
- thfuran 2y agoThat sort of issue crops up all the time in medicine. Screening for conditions will always produce some false positives, and the ramifications can vary from scaring the shit out of someone for a few weeks before you determine they don't have cancer after all to them dying as a result of further testing/treatment that wouldn't have happened without that initial screening. That and the potential adverse outcomes of the screening itself (and its costs) always has to be weighed against the value of the true positives.
- EspadaV9 2y agoI donated some blood a couple of years back and they came back saying there were proteins present. Having follow up tests at the moment, but none of the other markers are present that would normally be there if there was cancer. Still waiting to get further follow up tests, but no one seems to be worried enough to rush things along.
- dogtorwoof 2y agoWhich proteins?
- EspadaV9 2y agoThe only information on the report is the following Total Protein Initial Screen (g/L): 87 (normal range 61-84) Immunoglobulin IgA (g/L): 4.9 (normal range < 4.8) Immunoglobulin IgG Initial Screen (g/L): 18.5 (normal range 5.0 - 15.0) Just the IgG that seems to be significantly above the normal range. Not sure how accurate the tests are, but the first 2 feel like they could be within margin of errors.
- HappyJoy 2y agoWhere did you donate? The only feedback I usually get is a certificate every 8 trips.
- Symmetry 2y agoI donate platelets with the Red Cross every month and I've got an app where they give me the blood pressure and hemoglobin level, and which used to tell me if I had Covid-19 antibodies before everybody did via vaccine or infection. Before I donate I have to sign something that says, among other things "We're going to test your blood for AIDS and tell you if you have it, so if you don't want to know don't donate". I hadn't thought about the other things they test for but of course they don't want blood with Leukemia in it either.
- frontman1988 2y ago
- zero-sharp 2y agohttps://youtu.be/FzFT-KuE4BQ?si=7-EXbRz1TD4a5leL&t=56 https://youtu.be/FzFT-KuE4BQ?si=7-EXbRz1TD4a5leL&t=56 The video makes the case that the early detection of cancers isn't always a good thing. See 6:30 and 7:00 for specific references to scientific studies. Some cancers (thyroid and skin) can be detected at a much higher rate, but the associated mortality remains constant (we are detecting benign cancers). To be clear: obviously this is dependent on the cancer. Really my point is that we need studies that show that the screening improves outcomes.
- brnt 2y agoThis is how Dutch public healthcare motivates its general aversion to medical testing, as many a foreigner finds surprising and incongruent to the generally OK level of healthcare outcomes provided by the system. You can test and detect, but the error margins are often large (so many false positives and/or false negatives), would generate way too much workload to follow up and thereby cost time and money for better leads. Plus, as you say, knowing early doesn't always or even often mean you can actually change the outcomes. Now, this is what they say... I have tried to find the actual literature they use to motivate their protocols, and apart from occasionally, have not been able to find that evidence. I'd love to have a resource that demonstrates these sorts of things.
- fidotron 2y agoI am not sure that is unique to the Dutch, it is the line I have heard in several countries. Heavy agreement on your last part - if there is substantial evidence to back this up I would like to see it. As it stands I personally prefer the idea of constant mass testing in order that we learn as much as possible as quickly as possible, including improving the tests from the resulting feedback loop.
- brnt 2y agoWhen I see the prices of some of that testing, I know that that cannot be the reason, and indeed, establishing personal baselines by regular testing can only be helpful. The aversion to it grounded on taking some average patient, I am convinced. I really wish there was more transparency, because test aversion is exactly the same protocol you'd invent if you were trying to save money. I want to be able to see which of the two we're dealing with.
- kazinator 2y agoSay we find some proteins in the blood that hint at cancer 7 years away. How is that actionable, and will it make a difference? How low is the false positive rate?
- tomoyoirl 2y agoA key benefit is that it might be able to perform follow up screenings that make sense for that type of cancer, rather than expecting absolutely everyone to take all the tests ever at the same rate, at significant inconvenience and expense.
- blurbleblurble 2y agoSo you can get seven years more of nocebo effect, anxiety, stress and worry?
- njarboe 2y agoDoes this mean we can get the 5 year cancer survival rate to 100%?
- m3kw9 2y agoYou detect it and then what? You get depressed and there is no treatment for something that early. Better to test for obvious signs every year based on susceptiblility. Maybe the depression and stress can make you more sick, let alone the effect on your family should you announce it
- goda90 2y agoImprove your health with better diet, exercise, sleep. Find and reduce carcinogen exposures. Give your immune system a chance to nip it in the bud before you even need treatment.
- andrewmutz 2y agoYou can get these sorts of tests already. Last year I used this company's product and it was a smooth experience: https://www.galleri.com/ https://www.galleri.com/
- ak217 2y agoGrail's test is a cfDNA test. It detects DNA fragments in blood that are indicative of specific methylation patterns that are in turn indicative of possible cancerous growth. While a good approach, there are continued sensitivity challenges with cfDNA tests. This research is a high quality longitudinal retrospective study of protein cancer biomarkers, not cfDNA. Protein biomarkers are a complementary signal that has the potential to boost the sensitivity and precision of these tests, especially when the signals are combined together.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zjp 2y agoIt seems like every other day there's a new breakthrough. I watched my paternal grandmother succumb to lung cancer when I was 7. She was my favorite person on Earth at the time and watching her go was devastating. It gives me so much hope to watch the category "treatable and preventable cancers" expand over time.
- consf 2y ago[dead]
- consf 2y ago[dead]
- kemmishtree 2y agoi.e., Why We Need Utility-Scale Solid-State Molecular Sensing, Reason #53,444,001
- srigi 2y agoIsn’t the cancer the “exponential game”? If there are 20 cancer cells in the body on day 1, on day 30 there will be 10737418240 (10.7B) cells if they double every day. This is how we were taught about cancer, so it is a very quick process when started. How can you get 7 years of ahead of time in this setup?
- arrosenberg 2y agoThey don't necessarily double every day. Some tumors are very stable, some are particularly metastatic. It often depends on access to blood supply and what type of cell has become cancerous.
- jimbobthrowawy 2y agoHere's hoping this kind of screening becomes quick and cheap enough to do at home or regularly at a pharmacy. I'd like to get a rough estimate of how many moles I have at least once a year if it wasn't a huge effort.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xyst 2y agoScientists and researchers come up with something new but it’s held back for years because “insurance doesn’t cover it, yet” and cites some bs “experimental treatment/test” reason. It’s a shame the US doesn’t have any way to quickly order non-invasive tests. Tests often only ordered when you are symptomatic. Even in those cases, you often get the bare minimum. Have seen doctors personally and as an observing third party totally write them off. Instead of diagnosing, prescribe meds and treat symptomatically.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hanson108 2y agoI’m excited about these advances. And optimistic that they will save lives.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago[dead]