You must log in or register to comment.

SometimesILieToo t1_jad0umi wrote

I heard this one before! Theranos vibes.


Sweaty-Feedback-1482 t1_jad9q27 wrote

[speaking in a suspiciously fake bass voice] No… this is actually a revolution of modern science. The future is now!


Fun-Rice-9438 t1_jadkzah wrote

Theres a lot of active research in this area, but yes they don’t mention any form of capture efficacy rate; so remains to be demonstrated


edoreinn t1_jaf24ka wrote

Came here to say “I’ve heard this one before..”


AlbinoShavedGorilla t1_jad0wka wrote

I feel like if the cancer is already in the bloodstream it might be too late by then. But I’m not doctor


captainmcfuckface t1_jad75fo wrote

I was thinking the opposite. that trace amounts of cancer are always happening in the body and being told to kill themselves by the immune system.

And if a device is sensitive enough to detect cancer in these ways, we suddenly end up with a 100% cancer rate and a lot of needless stress.

Ironically making real cancer rates higher


DataDrivenOrgasm t1_jadgwdy wrote

The cancer cell needs to be circulating and viable for this assay to work. They isolate individual cells from the blood and culture them to determine if any are cancerous. This is not a sensitive assay; far from it. They can shift through a little over 10,000 cells per assay. But blood has over 10 billion blood cells per ml. The cancer cells would need to be at level greater than 1 million per ml to be detected reliably.


captainmcfuckface t1_jadi80u wrote

ok, but still…

Japan almost never worries about cancer screening without a symptom and they have a longer life expectancy.

Personally, I think all the fear mongering over cancer is worse for us as a whole.


stillfumbling t1_jadkmj7 wrote

I highly suspect that is correlation not causation.

Japanese diets (and activity levels??) are significantly different that in the US.


captainmcfuckface t1_jadwkw4 wrote

someone’s never been to Japan. Their cancer rate is actually higher than the US and survival rate is lower. Our obsession with screening DOES save lives. Don’t get me wrong.

As far as diet goes, no. They eat a LOT of fried foods, beer, and cakes.

The main difference it walking. Transit vs cars, stairs vs elevators, and of course universal healthcare, are all part of better health. But Japan is often referred to as “the smoker’s paradise.”


CantStopMeReddit4 t1_jae1fsz wrote

Ok but you’re conflating a bunch of different stats here and not really making a cogent argument. You cite longer Japanese life expectancy (which is a general statistic not specific to cancer) while then citing how they don’t screen until there’s a symptom and that their survival rate is lower. There’s not really a clear point that you’re making as a result.

If their survival rate with cancer is lower then it would seem to behoove them to screen for cancer earlier via methods like the one in the article and you might have better cancer survival rates by catching things much quicker.


stillfumbling t1_jae4ttz wrote

Agreed. I have no idea what we just read.

If they screen less for cancer and have lower survival rates, that may suggest that more robust screening is good.

If diets are similar (I still don’t buy it, there’s also the issue of quantity, and additives etc…) and life expectancy is longer, maybe activity level and obesity are likely culprits.

No coherent point above though…


millershanks t1_jae5wij wrote

It‘s actually not too late at that point and usually way earlier than detecting a tumor. The problem so far has always been, and it doesn‘t seem so different with this device, that it‘s all right to know there is cancer in your body, but which type of cancer and where? Only a very few, less than a handful IIRC of cancer types can be correctly diagnosed by this method.


sakmaidic t1_jaereqv wrote

yeah, but early detection usually means better outcome


thebigfab t1_jacxz65 wrote

I am curious to try this out and would like to get my blood checked. How much would this cost?


Ed3030 t1_jadcr13 wrote

The downside is the tests need 8 pints of blood to get accurate results.


ruylopez03 t1_jae6pjl wrote

CTC tech has been around since 2009. Cfdna from blood is better, but you still need a biopsy to compare to. This is a dumb headline.


randyy308 t1_jaectw5 wrote

The idea is to be able to do an annual blood panel and then see if somebody needs to have a confirmatory biopsy. You might not see the need for the biopsy until 18 or 24 months for example. If it works even a decent amount of time then it's great.


sakmaidic t1_jaer70w wrote

yeah...i'll believe it when i see it


Kossef t1_jadnhtf wrote

I seriously thought that was a ariel view of a