Posted on 03/24/2017 5:58:38 AM PDT by Twotone
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, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Wonderful news!
how long before it gets approval?
This will be yuge!
We hear about so many cancer “breakthroughs” and then nothing good ever happens.
There are too many corporations who support the status quo of cancer treatment.
Don’t worry. Most likely this is another case of researcher hype to get more funding:
“The technology is in its infancy and requires further validation, but the potential benefits to patients are huge.”
Developed by UofC, but we're hearing about it from a Brit paper.
Mandela effect.
I too am pretty cynical about cancer ever being cured.
The vast majority of the researchers are sincere I am sure, but there is just WAYYYY too much money involved for a cure to ever be released if found.
This is too bad, since those researchers could then go into other areas of chronic and or catastrophic illnesses to focus on the elimination or mitigation of such things as MS, Parkinson’s, dementia, ad infinitum.
Thanks for posting!!!
Wish they had this 5 years ago. My brother might not be laying in the hospital dying an inch at a time.
L
I have to believe that the drive to make gazillions from the cure is just as strong as the drive to make gazillions from treatments.
Amazing. What a difference this would make.
Doesn’t say its a cure.
Kaiser and some of the UC hospitals have been using some type of DNA testing of breast cancer patients and a few other cancers.
There has been confusion as to what DNA is looked at. Like they wanted confusion as re patient DNA or cancer DNA which is relatively new.
Recently, patients have been told that the DNA is the cancer DNA. The test enables the doctors to streamline the treatment of the cancer patients re what to do after surgery.
What are the last two words of my sentence that you posted? Read them slowly. Let them sink in. I am not the one that misread or misspoke.
This test, if it is half as good as it sounds, is an awesome thing.
THis is why reforming the “health insurance” system is so complicated.
OK, so lets say this test works, and is approved. It’s great, right? We can catch cancer early, and have a better chance of beating it in cases where the cancer is beatable.
Now — what if your insurance company requires you to have this test as a condition of issuing a policy? In other words, you take the test, they check the results, if you have cancer, they refuse to cover you. Or they charge a higher premium.
Remember, “pre-existing conditions” are only those things that you KNOW about and therefore can divulge when applying for insurance. But as more tests can diagnose future problems, a smart insurance company would use these tests, just like they use questions about lifestyle choices (when they are allowed to, like you can ask someone if they are a smoker, but not if they engage in risky sex practices).
They can ask for family history, so now they’ll ask for the results of tests like this one.
We can stop them from asking — by supporting regulations that make it harder for them to accurately guess how much a particular person will cost. This is kind of like how “employer insurance” works, in most cases the insurance company waives the right to consider pre-existing conditions, in exchange for the company taking some or most of the risk, and the company figures it’s a small price for good loyal employees.
You get rid of employer insurance, what incentive is there for broad pools of differing risks?
But that is an incentive to buy a high-deductible low cost policy for catastrophic events. Zero-care essentially got rid of such policies, but they are the most reasonable for young people or people with good health histories.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. If you insure your car & your home or apartment, you should certainly be concerned about your health. And that’s the problem with Zero-care: it takes healthcare responsibility away from the individual & makes everyone else responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.