Detection of cancer before a clinical diagnosis could give patients and caregivers more time for intervention and may lead to better outcomes because tumors are more likely to be curable
  • HollowNaught@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    6 days ago

    Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives

    They’re better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is

    That is to say, I’m assuming that’s what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It’s the first thing I thought of when I heard “cancer in bloodstream”, as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak

    Edit: they’re talking about cancer “shedding genetic material”, which I hate how general they’re being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting

  • BigMacHole@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    1057·
    8 days ago

    What? This BETTER not be US funded Research! I DONT want MY Tax Dollars going to THIS when there’s SAD BILLIONAIRES still out there!

    -LITERALLY everyone who Voted for Trump!

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    22·
    8 days ago

    I thought cancer comes a goes all the time, wouldn’t that give a lot of people false positives and a start to the cascade of healthcare?

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      27·
      8 days ago

      Not really, no. It’s only really cancer once the cells multiply uncontrollably. Yes, sometimes cells don’t properly perform apoptosis, but there are other mechanisms that will target and kill those precancerous cells. Only once those other mechanisms fail does it become true cancer.

      Besides, even if this test did come back positive, they’d still have to identify a tumor and monitor. If you have a teeny-tiny benign tumor that isn’t hurting anything, the best course of action is to just leave it alone and monitor. Any surgical procedure risks spillage, which is basically human-induced metastasis.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        8 days ago

        That makes sense if I’m understanding you correctly. You might have cancerous cells, but it’s not actually cancer.

        • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
          10·
          8 days ago

          Right. Like you might walk by someone with a cold, and inhale a small number of their virus particles. But your immune system can handle that. If you spend a lot of time with them face-to-face, the virus gets a foothold (because of inhaling more viruses, this part isn’t a perfect metaphor) and starts multiplying, it can overwhelm the first line of defense and become an infection.

    • eletes@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      8 days ago

      The article says they’re detecting DNA shedding of genetic mutations. I think one example of this could be cancer caused by HPV should shed DNA that they could identify.

      It’s probably different but that’s what I’m thinking from that line

      • Bo7a@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        8 days ago

        Look up extra-cellular vesicles. This is where the magic is.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzOPEnglish
      13·
      8 days ago

      If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.