If it wasn't for a government that throws money like candy at the military (due to our lives being "in danger"), but considers 600,000 deaths from cancer something to ignore (especially when there are issues of costs to prevent or early detection, and more especially as a UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT public policy possibility), then this discovery would get a much different analysis.
It is only the $500 per test cost that has people poo pooing it.
A $25 per test cost would mean that it would be used NOW, and possibly even funded universally by the government. Forget all the questions about just how many lives it would save.
Would the 2/3rds diagnosis of positives for the 328,000 (non-breast cancer) previously unaware cancer-stricken individuals - meaning "only" 220,000 people would get diagnosed as opposed to 328,000 - somehow be inadequate?
Would every adult over 40 (all 150 million of them) being tested cause too many problems from 1.2 million "false positives"?
Can the cancer be stopped anyway?
FORGET THE QUESTIONS.
The fact is that it is ONLY THE $500 PRICE TAG that is stopping this from being available now. Otherwise, the government clowns (politicians) would make sure that it would be available NOW.
They would brag boastfully about "legislating morality" on the floor of the Congress.
One more response (to answer NoNukes) on the medical discovery of the century
quote: How close to 100%? The population of folks over 40 is huge. Is a large number of false positives going to swamp the health care system even if the false negative error is less than 1%?
I still need to read all the articles but this one has some info.
The newly developed blood-based cancer DNA test is exquisitely sensitive, accurately detecting one mutated fragment of DNA among 10,000 normal DNA fragments, literally “finding the needle in the haystack”.
We used CancerSEEK in just over 1,000 people with different types of early stage cancers. It was shown to accurately detect cancer, including in 70% or more of pancreas, ovary, liver, stomach and esophageal cancers. For each of these tumour types there are currently no screening tests available – blood based or otherwise.
Along with cancer detection, the blood test accurately predicted what type of cancer it was in 83% of cases.
Published in the journal Science, the research was led by a team from John Hopkins University, with collaboration from Australian scientists at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute.
Why it’s important
Steady progress continues to be made in the treatment of advanced cancers, including major gains in life expectancy. But this can come at significant physical and financial cost. Early diagnosis remains the key to avoiding the potentially devastating impact of many cancer treatments and to reducing cancer deaths.
However, where there are proven screening tests that lead to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes, such as colonoscopy screening for bowel cancer, these are typically unpleasant. They also have associated risks, only screen for one cancer at a time and population uptake is often poor. And for many major tumour types there are currently no effective screening tests.
There are characteristic patterns of mutations and altered proteins that differ among cancer types. So CancerSEEK can not only detect that there is a cancer somewhere in the body but can also suggest where to start looking.
For example, if the pattern suggests a bowel cancer, then a colonoscopy is a logical next step. When blood samples were taken from over 800 apparently healthy controls, less than 1% scored a positive test. This means the test is rarely positive for people who don’t have cancer, thereby reducing the problem of overdiagnosis.
I will try to contain myself from any more pasting.
Ovarian 98% 14,195 deaths per year
Liver 90% (more than 90%) 28,920 deaths (included bile duct cancer)
Pancreatic 70% (or more) 43,090 deaths
Esophageal 70% (or more) 16,000 deaths
Stomach 70% (or more) 11,000 deaths
Lung over 60% 155,870 deaths (included Bronchus)
Colon & rectal 60% (?) 50,260 deaths
Breast 33% 41,070 deaths
So of the 318,000 (359,000 with breast cancer, but I will leave that out for reasons I stated earlier) deaths from the top 7, it appears that there is an accuracy rate which indicates at least 66% will get a correct cancer diagnosis.
That would suggest over 200,000 will get the early diagnosis of cancer.
212,000 to 221,000.
(I wonder if those who get a test result "negative" when they should be positive would be more likely to get the "positive" reading with additional tests beyond 1 per year)
This news page mentioned a test per year (just like I have been)
Scientists one step closer to a 'Holy Grail' blood test which can diagnose cancer
By Mirror | Published Mon, January 22nd 2018 at 10:37, Updated January 22nd 2018 at 10:39 GMT +3
A blood test to detect cancer is one step closer after scientists developed one that can spot eight types of the disease.
Described as the “Holy Grail”, the newly developed test could revolutionise screening programmes far many deadly cancers.
Although currently still being trialled, hopes are it could eventually see GP’s able to offer patients blood tests to detect the disease even when no symptoms have developed, saving lives through early diagnosis.
Dr Gert Attard, team leader in the Centre for Evolution and Cancer at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, told the BBC: “This is of massive potential.
“I’m enormously excited.
“This is the Holy Grail - a blood test to diagnose cancer without all the other procedures like scans or colonoscopy.”
Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in the US have developed a test that screens for eight common forms of cancer and helps identify the location of the disease.
The test, called CancerSEEK, looks for mutations in 16 genes and evaluates the levels of eight proteins usually released by cancer sufferers.
It was evaluated on 1,005 patients with cancers of the ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectum, lung or breast.
Researchers said its ability to find cancers was successful 70% of the time - and ranged from a high of 98% for ovarian cancer to a low of 33% for breast cancer.
Dr Cristian Tomasetti, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told the BBC: “This field of early detection is critical, and the results are very exciting.
“I think this can have an enormous impact on cancer mortality.”
He added: “We envision a blood test we could use once a year.”
Professor of oncology Bert Vogelstein said that although the test does not spot every cancer, it identifies many cancers that would likely otherwise go undetected.
However, Dr Richard Marais, Director of the Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute, cautioned that it is still not known how effective the test will be at detecting the disease in people who have no symptoms.
He said: “Detecting cancer early, before the disease has spread is one of the most powerful ways to improve cancer survival and this interesting research is a step towards being able to do this earlier than is currently possible.
“This study only looked at people who were already diagnosed with cancer, so we don’t yet know how effective it would be at picking up the disease in people who don’t have symptoms.
“We now need clinical trials to test its accuracy further as well as more research to work out why the test failed in 30% of patients and whether these tests can be extended to other cancers.
“Hopefully in the future we can develop a blood test such as this that can be used routinely in patients, perhaps once a year, to allow them to know earlier if they have cancer and to get them treated much sooner.”
The next ongoing step is to trial CancerSEEK on people who have not been diagnosed with cancer.
The findings have been published in the journal Science.
The once a year idea was mentioned in the Standard Media site.
The low rate of false positives was mentioned as a major plus in the Bio Tech In Asia site.
Again, it said:
"For example, if the pattern suggests a bowel cancer, then a colonoscopy is a logical next step. When blood samples were taken from over 800 apparently healthy controls, less than 1% scored a positive test. This means the test is rarely positive for people who don’t have cancer, thereby reducing the problem of overdiagnosis."
Dr Cristian Tomasetti, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine said:
“This field of early detection is critical, and the results are very exciting."
“I think this can have an enormous impact on cancer mortality.”
“We envision a blood test we could use once a year.”
But this will likely only be for a few days, then it will be more difficult to find on google.
Go to the page I linked yesterday for all blogs and newspages.
There have been additional outlets picking it up since my post (which, honestly, I thought was a little late)
latest google news
Story image for liquid biopsy from The Scientist
Liquid Biopsy Test May Help Screen Eight Types of Cancer
The Scientist-22 hours ago
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a blood test that that can detect signs of eight different types of cancer, according to preliminary trial results published last week (January 18) in Science. The new diagnostic, dubbed CancerSEEK, is one of many liquid biopsies that have sprung up ...
Blood Test to Detect 8 Cancers Early Gives Promising Results Voice of America-16 hours ago
'Liquid biopsy': New blood test can detect eight common cancers Pharmacy News-8 hours ago
This New, Inexpensive Test Can Detect Cancer Cells Earlier Than ... Sanvada Tech News (blog)-18 hours ago
Blood test to detect eight cancers early gives promising results Frederick News Post-11 hours ago
Those were the top box of stories and they came after my post.
The second box has older stories
Story image for liquid biopsy from Science Magazine
'Liquid biopsy' promises early detection for cancer
Science Magazine-Jan 18, 2018
The Johns Hopkins group and others have shown that so-called liquid biopsies of blood-borne tumor DNA can reveal, for example, whether a patient's cancer should respond to a specific drug. But detecting the scant DNA released by early stage tumors is still challenging. Companies such as the $1 billion ...
Simple blood test detects eight different kinds of cancer Nature.com-Jan 18, 2018
A cheap and easy blood test could catch cancer early MIT Technology Review-Jan 18, 2018
Cancer Diagnosis from a Blood Draw? Liquid Biopsies Are Still a ... In-Depth-WIRED-Jan 18, 2018
New cancer test promises hope Opinion-The Australian-Jan 18, 2018
Life-Saving Early Cancer Detection Could Be Vastly Improved With ... In-Depth-Newsweek-Jan 18, 2018
Detection 78% of stage 3 is good if this is cheap and universally available.
I now think the test should be done every 6 months on EVERYBODY over 40.
And the government should pay the discoverers off (like $10 billion or more) so the medical technology can be freely shared (in all its details) with every interested researcher the world over.
This is too serious to allow to be wrapped under some "trade secret" or "patent" rights protection.
This advance needs to be widely available to tweek and modify so that it works at higher than 43% accuracy (on Stage 1 which might literally cut cancer deaths in half - at least! - if everybody gets a test every 6 months).
I bet that 78% detection (of all cancers and not just 8) at the Stage 1 level (as opposed to Stage 3) could cut cancer deaths down to 200,000 per year (eventually), and the number would be much higher if a good treatment for T-RAS gene (among other hopeful breakthroughs) somehow comes into existence.
So we flew out to Portland Oregon to visit son and girlfriend and do some sightseeing, and serendipitously see younger brother there for a conference, up from California.
Got a couple of days in and shortness of breath sent me to the neighborhood clinic and then a short ride to the hospital. The x-rays showed left lung almost totally collapsed. They drained almost 4 liters from the lung cavity, and over the last week it has recover over 95% capacity. Enough. To let me go back to air bnb, along with some meds. Worst part is coughing, which is part of the recovery processes with attendant headaches and muscle aches. I can now walk around the block. Slowly. And I can run out of breath but recover.
That’s the good news (it didn’t kill me and I can get better).
The bad news is that the cause of the fluid accumulation is my lymphoma coming back. Won’t know the upshot of that until we get home, but it looked bad in the x-rays. I’ll try to get some pictures up, but the laptop is at home and I’m trying out a new iPad. With keypad cover. Some getting used to the differences.
On an up note, because they were worried about flying we are taking the train make, with direct link from Portland to Providence, RI.
And I have some optimism that treatments have improved in the last 5 years, and maybe have some genetic treatment available.
Take the fight slow and steady. Plan on being realistically optimistic. You have fought this fight before and science knows more about your opponent every day. You seem to be living life to the fullest and that is more than can be said of many people. You helped me with advice on my addiction, and I pulled out of a steep dive and now am on Day 70 of recovery! I hope to see you reclaim that lost ground and send this opponent packing once and for all!
Balance is the key for me. I dont look at each day simply as a fight but as an opportunity to enjoy life while I fight. Gotta get healthy so you can hike some more and fix some more mini's!
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
Well it's been a month since this started (or longer, there were signs I ignored before leaving), but we are getting settled into a new normal here at home.
Been in hospital twice here to get lung cavity drained (total 8 1/4 L or over 2 gallons) of fluid. It seems I am accumulating the fluid at a rate of ~1/2L per day, due to lymphomic production and blocked drainage. I've started a new chemo regimen, periodic trips to hospital for an infusion, and in between taking nasty pills at home on a strict schedule (at least it is at home). A nurse comes by every 2 or 3 days to drain the lung cavity (I have a catheter in my side).
The trip home was fun at first. The first morning we went through Glacier National Park on a bright sunny day with snow draped mountains and blue sky. Glacier is one of my favorite parks.
But then we hit the plains and it was snorzeville. Chicago was a madhouse, and the run down to Washington has to be one of the oldest tracks we traveled. Bumpy and lurchy, and that didn't add to comfort. Food was good (I could even get a rare steak), but I am glad I had my earplugs along. From DC to Providence was on the Acel fast train, but no meals. My remembrance of the Canadian trains we took in the 70's was much smoother and more space. May have to test that out.
My (old ready to die) Android tablet broke and I took advantage of son's knowledge to get a new ipad. It does what I wanted the tablet for, but I am frustrated by picture and file sharing limitations. I'll have to use web application to cloud net and get all my pictures together from phone and ipad and the chip from the tablet.