Blood test detects cancer and pinpoints location...before symptoms appear

Scientists at the U of California have developed a test that COULD diagnose cancer before signs of a lump shows. The test could be lumped in with other routine blood tests like cholesterol.

A blood test which not only detects cancer but identifies where it is in the body, has been developed by scientists.
The breakthrough could allow doctors to diagnose specific cancers much earlier, even before signs such as a lump, begin to show.

It is simple enough to be included in routine annual health checks alongside other tests such as for high blood pressure or cholesterol.

The test called CancerLocator looks for DNA in the blood from the cancer.

The test, called CancerLocator, has been developed by the University of California, and works by hunting for the DNA from tumours which circulates in the blood of cancer patients.

The team discovered that tumours which arise in different parts of the body hold a distinctive ‘footprint’ which a computer can spot.

“Non-invasive diagnosis of cancer is important, as it allows the early diagnosis of cancer, and the earlier the cancer is caught, the higher chance a patient has of beating the disease,” said Professor Jasmine Zhou, co-lead author from the University of California at Los Angeles.

The US team built a computer database containing specific molecular patterns of cancers. This can lead to identifying where the cancer is, like lung of liver cancer.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
To create the new test, the US team built a computer database containing specific molecular patterns which occur in tissue when tumours were present. Some markers of DNA damage show up no matter which cancer is present, while others are specific to the type of tissue they originated from, such as lung of liver.

originally posted by: seasonal
Scientists at the U of California have developed a test that COULD diagnose cancer before signs of a lump shows. The test could be lumped in with other routine blood tests like cholesterol.

A blood test which not only detects cancer but identifies where it is in the body, has been developed by scientists.
The breakthrough could allow doctors to diagnose specific cancers much earlier, even before signs such as a lump, begin to show.

It is simple enough to be included in routine annual health checks alongside other tests such as for high blood pressure or cholesterol.

The test called CancerLocator looks for DNA in the blood from the cancer.

The test, called CancerLocator, has been developed by the University of California, and works by hunting for the DNA from tumours which circulates in the blood of cancer patients.

The team discovered that tumours which arise in different parts of the body hold a distinctive ‘footprint’ which a computer can spot.

“Non-invasive diagnosis of cancer is important, as it allows the early diagnosis of cancer, and the earlier the cancer is caught, the higher chance a patient has of beating the disease,” said Professor Jasmine Zhou, co-lead author from the University of California at Los Angeles.

The US team built a computer database containing specific molecular patterns of cancers. This can lead to identifying where the cancer is, like lung of liver cancer.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
To create the new test, the US team built a computer database containing specific molecular patterns which occur in tissue when tumours were present. Some markers of DNA damage show up no matter which cancer is present, while others are specific to the type of tissue they originated from, such as lung of liver.

Well that's cool. I wonder how early it can catch it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wonder if anyone will be able to afford the test.

That's a BIG step in the right direction ...Good job

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wonder if anyone will be able to afford the test.

It should be paid by insurance as the test should be more cost effective than paying for cancer treatment.

Only a the richest are going to afford this

a reply to: Nickn3

Not til the deductible is met.

Our system is broken.

a reply to: Denoli

We will see, medical companies are about profits first. So they will have to price this just to the extent it is expensive, but not too expensive, $2,500 my opinion.

Every day, cancer cells are forming in our body and they often grow in numbers before our immune system detects them and attacks them. The P53 is involved in this. Too many antioxidants in the diet continually and our body cannot detect the cancer.

So there would always be traces of cancer floating around in the blood I think. I do not know how the test is interpretted, but I think that this test could be used to scam people too, our bodies attack cancer most times and completely destroy small incidences of it. It would be nice if you could use the information from this test to identify risk, then you could modify your diet, yes diet is important depending on risk of cancer. If you eat foods to keep away breast cancer and you do not have much risk for breast cancer, you can raise risk of other cancers. That is really evident when examining a lot of different research. Genetic risk has to be considered but they do need more research to be done on evaluating how that works.

I see possible good in this test but I also see that some doctors will misuse this for profit. But, we all know that the medical and Pharmacutical companies are greedless and very honest.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Denoli

We will see, medical companies are about profits first. So they will have to price this just to the extent it is expensive, but not too expensive, $2,500 my opinion.

Yeah, two and a half grand a pop. They will say you need them every year, that means our insurance will go up two hundred bucks a month to cover the costs.

a reply to: rickymouse

I don't have a firm answer to how to deal with this very difficult problem, and the problem has nothing to do with health care.

Health care is expensive because it has been lobbied to be expensive. The problem isn't that most health care material is expensive, they aren't. It is the amount of levels and share holders that demand not just a positive return, a perpetual positive return. This means ever increasing cost all around.

The only solution I can see is either very heavy handed restrictions on profits, or a non profit system meaning no stock markets, or investors. I don't really know though.

a reply to: rickymouse
If you´d buy it private, you´ll end up at almost the same price that the insurance is calculating internally, to justify the price. ...and the insurance get´s a special deal because of mass orders but in the end, they will sack the difference. Business rule #1.

a reply to: verschickter

The pricing for all medical is a guessing game, by design.

Have an outpatient procedure get bills for months from many different branches of the hospital.

Have a stay and the same but you get bills from "consults" ( look and runs), the Dr. who asks "how are you?", and that is a $200 question. And the look and runs happen multiple times a day. Huge $$$ for the Dr. and hospitals. Oh better make damn sure the Dr. is in you network.

A crucial step in ushering personalized medicine. Hint: There's no singular "cure for cancer" as there's no singular type of cancer, let alone form of cancer.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wonder if anyone will be able to afford the test.

The first year, given limited availability alone, should be pricey. The following year availability would spread. After a couple few years it should become very reasonable and widespread. After that it should ubiquitously come in forms of a "chip", and or blotter types tests like for drug and pregnancy testing.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I imagine you are right.

Cancer is big business, there is little you can say to someone to scare them more, the $$$ making possibility is staggering.

a reply to: seasonal

Sounds pretty fantastic...nice find OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

I don't have a firm answer to how to deal with this very difficult problem, and the problem has nothing to do with health care.

Health care is expensive because it has been lobbied to be expensive. The problem isn't that most health care material is expensive, they aren't. It is the amount of levels and share holders that demand not just a positive return, a perpetual positive return. This means ever increasing cost all around.

The only solution I can see is either very heavy handed restrictions on profits, or a non profit system meaning no stock markets, or investors. I don't really know though.

There is only one problem with your analysis. If that was true, how come the same drug by the same company is often way cheaper in Canada or much of Europe. Taking out variables to make things match shows Pharma making way more on United state sales. You can say liability, and that is a factor, but most pharma medicines only have a limited amount of liability because they were proven to be safe by the FDA. Also, since these medications can be altered as to effect by both diet and combinations of medications, it is almost impossible to prove that the medicine itself actually causes the problem.

a reply to: rickymouse

What part of my statement is not in line with yours?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

What part of my statement is not in line with yours?

The part about stockholders

The main reason is that if the company does better, the heads of the company get big raises, the common stockholders don't usually gain much. These ceo's get lucritive stock options and bonuses. They probably make more on stock benefits than salaries. It is that way in most big corporations, their salary could be a million a year and they get three million in stock. Less income taxes paid on the stock portion. It can be deferred till later too.

a reply to: rickymouse
it´s not really different in europe, yes the prices are cheaper, even way cheaper online but in terms of stocks, it´s the same as in your country. I don´t know how it´s handled in the USA but standalone doctors commonly found on the more rural parts have contracts with pharma producers and if the prescribe you something to get in the drug store (or now, online with recipt) it will be the companies product that he has a contract with. Some is paid by insurance if prescribed, some is not.

For example, if you earn 3000€ each month, one half of the insurance is paid by the employe, the other hals is substracted from your loan (before tax). That part would, on public healthcare (you can choose private if you want), cost you around 15%(450€) of your loan, before tax. No medical bills, except if you are in hospital, you pay 10€ a month minimum for 28 days maximum. There are very few things that are not included. Such are operations have no medical use, like breast enlargements. Even then there are exceptions. You can have upgrades like 1 bed hospital rooms or additional treatments if you choose an extra plan. The wife and children are included by the way, if you are married and at least one person works fulltime.

That´s it in a nutshell. And it works, is affordable, granted if jobless for 2 years and still the pharma companies sack a huge profit. But way cheaper than yours. No offense, just a different system. Oh and if you can´t work because of temporary medical reasons, you get up to 72 months in a row 90% of your regular loan after tax. Like big operations or accidents.