Posted on 10/21/2025 9:02:13 AM PDT by lowbridge
A new type of blood test could help detect multiple cancers early.
A team of researchers in California studied a new multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test called Galleri, which can reportedly detect more than 50 types of disease.
The study analyzed about 23,161 participants 50 years of age and older across the US and Canada who did not have any symptoms.
These participants underwent standard screenings recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for certain cancers, including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung.
They also took the Galleri blood test, which is made by GRAIL, Inc., a biotechnology company based in Menlo Park, California.
The researchers compared the standard screenings alone to the standard screenings plus the blood test.
Out of the more than 23,000 people sampled, the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 216 of them, 133 of whom were confirmed to have the disease.
This means there was a 61.6% chance that someone with a positive Galleri test actually had cancer. The false positive rate was “very low” at about 0.4%, according to the researchers.
More than half (53.5%) of Galleri-detected cancers were Stage 1 or 2, while 69.3% were Stage 1 to 3.
The results showed that about three-quarters of the cancers identified in the trial group do not currently have standard screening options in the US
The study also found that cancer detection increased more than seven times when the Galleri blood test was combined with standard screening.
Study investigator Nima Nabavizadeh, M.D., associate professor of radiation medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, stated in an interview with Fox News Digital how he was “incredibly encouraged” by these findings and what they may mean for filling unmet screening needs and detecting cancer early.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
A false positive usually just means some more tests.
A false negative however can result in you thinking things are ok when they are not. Which is often deadly.
Actually I got an email from Longevity about this test and there as a video with a patient who had his pancreatic cancer detected early because of this test. Sounds like he’s going to make it.
I did realize, as I’d already posted, that they were using the number of tests, not the number of positive tests in the denominator.
But your reasoning is off: You demonstrated that they found a rate of cancer consistent with real-world expectations. But the point of the test is that they identified, albeit with a high false-positive rate, WHICH of those people have cancer.
There's that word again.
Consider how one is selected to be among those "23,000." Generally, self-selection is operative, alongside worry and the like. Cicra 60 percent of those who select to be part of a trial indicates something, as yet not mentioned.
"A team of researchers in California" is other than the OSHU individual quoted, from an organization noted in part for its "Transgender and Gender-Diverse Medical Care."
All in all, the NY Post -- republishing FOX News -- is less informative about that "team of researchers in California." Of course, GRAIL is in Menlo Park.
From later in the article"
"The study also does not directly compare the Galleri test to a control group that did not receive the test in the same setting and conditions, which makes it difficult to determine the full benefit of the test. The press release states: 'Test performance metrics do not represent results of a head-to-head comparative study'.”So, at best, we're toying with numbers without other than news and promotional value in the moment. And no control group. Good enough for marketing, though.
One also notes that the studt was not of 23,000. Rather "a more complete analysis of the study’s full 35,000 participants." What's missing seems a full 35 percent of the participants. And no control group.
This test is not new.It’s been out for at least a couple of years.
This is a new costume for the old conundrum.
I can tell you with absolute certainty on WHICH day and at WHAT hour you will die. Do you want to know?For any who say, "yes," we are now negotiating for how much that certainty is worth.
For those who would answer "no," a potential magician or charalatan has no customer, and no negotiations are open.
I am among those who would walk away from such an offering of certainty, or the impression of certainty. Besides, I'm already well past my "sell by" date.
That’s one of my customers and another in South San Francisco was just listed in the Physician Desk Reference(PDR)
“…Out of the more than 23,000 people sampled, the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 216 of them, 133 of whom were confirmed to have the disease….”
*******************************************************************
Well it’s highly likely that there are 133 people who are glad they took the test and were found to have one (or more?) of the cancers that the test looks for. Particularly if it caught the cancer in the early stages where the chances of a cure are high.
For the 83 “false positive” cases it may have been somewhat of a scary nuisance. But several of the false positives MAY be cases where the test picked up a signal produced by a cancer so tiny that current “regular” tests or exams will be unable to find it. Those people might be wise to be aware of that possibility when they plan their future medical exams.
If it works.
I have people that I need to stay alive for so I would take it.
I have a friend that insisted on a test that she was "to young for" and yep, cancer.
I have another friend that took her teenage son to the doctor only to be brushed off with, it's just stress. Until the day when he couldn't get his leg to work properly. Brain cancer.
So if a quick blood test could, if nothing else, rule out cancers it would be a major advance.
And the Terms of Service for this "screening" will likely state that you relinquish any and all control of your blood, that your "sample" becomes the property of the company, and they can use it for whatever purpose they want.
Backdoor DNA testing, and God knows what else..
People need to be very careful in today's world about sending "samples" of body fluids, saliva, etc. - anywhere.
The story of the DNA testing company 23andMe should be a warning..
Founded in 2006, 23andMe soon became the first company to begin offering autosomal DNA testing for ancestry, which all other major companies now use. Its saliva-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing business was named "Invention of the Year" by Time in 2008.
23andMe became a publicly traded company in 2021, via a merger with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC), and soon had a market capitalization of US$6 billion. By 2024, its valuation had fallen to 2% of that peak. In March 2025, 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and CEO Anne Wojcicki resigned. Due to the sensitive nature of data stored by 23andMe and privacy concerns due to bankruptcy filing, the attorney general of California subsequently issued a consumer alert for its customers.
On May 19, 2025, Regeneron agreed to buy 23andMe out of bankruptcy for $256 million. In June, TTAM Research Institute, a non-profit founded by Anne Wojcicki, outbid Regeneron and won the bid for 23andMe for $305 million.
On July 14, 2025, TTAM announced that it had completed the purchase of 23andMe's assets.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-10-17/23andme-genetic-data-privacy-bankrupt-dna-test-ancestry/104455816 (October 2024)
23andMe is on the verge of bankruptcy. It may be too late to delete your genetic data
Popular genetic testing company 23andMe is facing bankruptcy and may sell the genetic data of its 15 million customers.
Users have the option to delete their data, but the company can retain it for three years. Data that's already been sold to researchers may not be able to be deleted.
Sounds pretty much like they are recycling her marketing for a magic machine.
Burden is on them to prove this one is any different from hers.
So it works 0.0057826086956522 of the time?
I have heard them advertised for about $900.
yep
“Breakthrough blood test could detect over 50 types of cancer”
Hopefully that creepy blond with the turtlenecks is not involved, since that would make it a scam.
We are not in disagreement. It's a matter of "rule out" which is at play. With false positives and such, and, as another correctly posited, false negatives, the progress towards "certainly" remains opaque.
The operative word remains, as above, "if."
If.
Either you’re just being combative, or you’re totally missing my point, or you’re not addressing the point of mine that you quoted. Yes, you point out some limitations; the Post article was full of caveats. But they have nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which is that the study found WHICH 0.6% of enrollees had cancer.
Tests for cancer reveal cancer. Long before GRAIL. No disagreement.
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.