Potential 'universal' blood test for cancer discovered

Potential 'universal' blood test for cancer discovered

Researchers from the University of Bradford have devised a simple blood test that can be used to diagnose whether people have cancer or not.

The test will enable doctors to rule out cancer in patients presenting with certain symptoms, saving time and preventing costly and unnecessary invasive procedures such as colonoscopies and biopsies being carried out. Alternatively, it could be a useful aid for investigating patients who are suspected of having a cancer that is currently hard to diagnose.

Early results have shown the method gives a high degree of accuracy diagnosing cancer and pre-cancerous conditions from the blood of patients with melanoma, colon cancer and lung cancer. The research is published online in FASEB Journal, the US journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

The Lymphocyte Genome Sensitivity (LGS) test looks at white blood cells and measures the damage caused to their DNA when subjected to different intensities of ultraviolet light (UVA), which is known to damage DNA. The results of the empirical study show a clear distinction between the damage to the white blood cells from patients with cancer, with pre-cancerous conditions and from healthy patients.

Professor Diana Anderson, from the University's School of Life Sciences led the research. She said: "White blood cells are part of the body's natural defence system. We know that they are under stress when they are fighting cancer or other diseases, so I wondered whether anything measureable could be seen if we put them under further stress with UVA light.We found that people with cancer have DNA which is more easily damaged by ultraviolet light than other people, so the test shows the sensitivity to damage of all the DNA -- the genome -- in a cell."

The study looked at blood samples taken from 208 individuals. Ninety-four healthy individuals were recruited from staff and students at the University of Bradford and 114 blood samples were collected from patients referred to specialist clinics within Bradford Royal Infirmary prior to diagnosis and treatment. The samples were coded, anonymised, randomised and then exposed to UVA light through five different depths of agar.

A clinical trial is currently underway. It will investigate the effectiveness of the LGS test in correctly predicting which patients referred by their GPs with suspected colorectal cancer would, or would not, benefit from a colonoscopy -- currently the preferred investigation method.

I don't need to tell you how big of a deal this is. The easier it is to diagnose someone, the better chance you have of saving their life.

and discuss

There arebasically hundreds of different forms of cancer. How could it be that universal? It would be good to pick up many forms if possible but i have doubts of it being truely universal.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Hope it's true and pans out.

Would be a major achievement.

If you think about the test, I can see how it makes sense but also how it will take a lot more work to confirm it's accuracy.

This would be amazing, if it turns out to be an accurate way to screen for cancer.

If this test detects it, you still have to figure out where it is.

Having lost every immediate family member to different kinds of cancer, this hits home for me.

I need this to work.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If you think about the test, I can see how it makes sense but also how it will take a lot more work to confirm it's accuracy.

This would be amazing, if it turns out to be an accurate way to screen for cancer.

If this test detects it, you still have to figure out where it is.

Having lost every immediate family member to different kinds of cancer, this hits home for me.

I need this to work.

~Namaste

I understand, I've lost my share number of people to cancer so it even if this can detect a good chunk of cancers instead of all, that would be awesome.

It may also pave the way to being able to detect others using a different but similar method. Who knows but wouldn't that be great.

originally posted by: Aural
There arebasically hundreds of different forms of cancer. How could it be that universal? It would be good to pick up many forms if possible but i have doubts of it being truely universal.

It's because it is looking at DNA damage which, by the sounds of it, is something that is universal with people with cancer


(((Side note: I could be wrong, I read the article fast & have a pounding headache so I may not have quite understood it properly)))

This could potentially save a lot of lives. Cut that cancer out of the body before it spreads. I read somewhere yesterday that the chances of getting cancer at 60 years of age or older is like 40%.

I don't really undersand this, either, but what do I know? I thought cancer was what happened after a cell could:

1. no longer repair itself
2. not undergo programmed cell death (this part is damaged as well)
3. continues to divide and produce more damaged growth

What does this happening at the cellular level in one part of the body have to do with susceptabilities of dna in white blood cells to UVA?

Guess there's a link here that I'm missing.

Professor Diana Anderson, from the University's School of Life Sciences led the research. She said: "White blood cells are part of the body's natural defence system. We know that they are under stress when they are fighting cancer or other diseases, so I wondered whether anything measureable could be seen if we put them under further stress with UVA light.We found that people with cancer have DNA which is more easily damaged by ultraviolet light than other people, so the test shows the sensitivity to damage of all the DNA -- the genome -- in a cell."

Wow! So this is for all cells. If it holds true for the white blood cell, then this transfers over to all other cells. They found a correlation, which means that a chunk of people who eventually get cancer, likely do so in large part due to this reason. If we could isolate this genetically, then we could figure out which people need to take extra precautions against susceptable mutagens. We can see UVA right away, but it could be more than in general the ability to repair DNA is simply much weaker, like how a chunk of the species can't process certain toxins like alcohol nearly as well as others.

It could very well be that the majority of cancer is not really down to a specific single cause, rather a combination of genetic susceptabilities interacting with environmental stressors. Basically we may be able to genetically engineer the species to work around cancer for the most part. Very intersting, but we must keep in mind that correlation doesn't mean causation, and that even though you could show up with this susceptability, and still have issues in an area, it doesn't absolutely mean that the cancer is certainly present. It could still be another issue.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I don't really undersand this, either, but what do I know? I thought cancer was what happened after a cell could:

Not get enough Oxygen.

A guy called Otto Warburg won the noble peace prize in 1931 after discovering that a lack of oxygen causes cancer

so if you oxygenate the body this should clear most cancers up.

a reply to: jinni73

That doesn't make any sense.

You show me where this doctor won the nobel peace prize FOR discovering that a lack of oxygen is the SOLE cause of cancer.

Let's follow the logic holes here.

1. Just cause someone won a noble, doesn't mean they're infalliable.

2. You didn't state he actually won it FOR this discovery.

3. Just cause you can induce cancer by depriving a cell what it needs to thrive, doesn't mean it's the only cause of cancer.

4. The cause for a condition does not indicate the cure for a condition.

I showed what caused cancer, though the way we get there seems many. This article shows a genetic component. There is actual biological malfunctions within the cell, which I stated.

What does seem possible, perhaps, is that there can be irreperable damage to a cell once enough oxygen deprivation is present over a period of time. Once cancer has set in, there is no nutrient, including oxygen, which can reverse it. The mechanisms to repair the cancer have been destroyed.

Hey man it was nice talking with you tonight. Just so you and everyone understands this better.. Everyone actually has cancer; however what society today knows as cancer is in reality what occurs when dead cells do not exit the body normally and are instead collected up together into a mass known as a tumor.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

"Cells become cancer cells because of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) damage. DNA is in every cell and it directs all its actions. In a normal cell, when DNA is damaged the cell either repairs the damage or the cell dies. In cancer cells, the damaged DNA is not repaired, but the cell doesn’t die like it should. Instead, the cell goes on making new cells that the body doesn’t need. These new cells all have the same damaged DNA as the first abnormal cell does."

www.cancer.org...

"All cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. To understand cancer, it's helpful to know what happens when normal cells become cancer cells.

The body is made up of many types of cells. These cells grow and divide in a controlled way to produce more cells as they are needed to keep the body healthy. When cells become old or damaged, they die and are replaced with new cells.

However, sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division. When this happens, cells do not die when they should and new cells form when the body does not need them. The extra cells may form a mass of tissue called a tumor."

www.cancer.gov...

Delete me - double post.

Very interesting and definitely heading down the 'star trek' route of diagnosis of illnesses....

Is it a benign tumour or a bite from an Antarian mud flea.....? Quick blood test through the tri-Corder and hey presto....

In all seriousness though Point Of Care testing is the way forward...... Enables people to take more Responsibility for their healthcare and reduces the strain on the current healthcare services - GP's and secondary care...

PDUK

originally posted by: Time2Think
Hey man it was nice talking with you tonight. Just so you and everyone understands this better.. Everyone actually has cancer; however what society today knows as cancer is in reality what occurs when dead cells do not exit the body normally and are instead collected up together into a mass known as a tumor.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

This is true. The average person has 4 "outbreaks" of cancer but their body is healthy enough to fight off the cancer.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Really? Guess I'm just off here. I thought cancer something that was irreversable without cutting, burning, or poisoning. I thought our body had cells that got messed up, but then could still do apoptosis. So small tumors where there is rapid cell division of damaged dna would occur, but the body would eventually ramp up the ability to kill off the abnormal growth. Thought that cancer was a designation that only came about once it was clear that the bodies ability to fight it off was just not happening. Maybe I have a false understanding?!

originally posted by: Aural
There arebasically hundreds of different forms of cancer. How could it be that universal? It would be good to pick up many forms if possible but i have doubts of it being truely universal.

I'm guessing all they need to do is home in on one chemical change that is pretty much apparent in everyone who has cancer. It may not tell you what type of cancer you have, but it would tell whether or not it was present. Once that was established, the doctors could go from there.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Pretty much EVERYONE has a false understanding unless they go through it themselves - like me :T or they do the research themselves.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Aural
There arebasically hundreds of different forms of cancer. How could it be that universal? It would be good to pick up many forms if possible but i have doubts of it being truely universal.

I'm guessing all they need to do is home in on one chemical change that is pretty much apparent in everyone who has cancer. It may not tell you what type of cancer you have, but it would tell whether or not it was present. Once that was established, the doctors could go from there.

As I quoted above from cancer.org:

"Cells become cancer cells because of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) damage. DNA is in every cell and it directs all its actions. In a normal cell, when DNA is damaged the cell either repairs the damage or the cell dies. In cancer cells, the damaged DNA is not repaired, but the cell doesn’t die like it should. Instead, the cell goes on making new cells that the body doesn’t need. These new cells all have the same damaged DNA as the first abnormal cell does.

deoxyribonucleic acid damage detection:

scholar.google.com... QgQMwAA

This "new" discovery seems to be based off of some stuff scientists have been working on since 1993. Makes sense I guess, just hope if it is that everyone gets credit. Unfortunately I cannot read the entire .PDF :T

Direct enzymic detection of endogenous oxidative base damage in human lymphocyte DNA

carcin.oxfordjournals.org...