Science
Related: About this forumNew blood test can detect 50 types of cancer
System uses machine learning to offer new way to screen for hard-to-detect cancers
Nicola Davis
@NicolaKSDavis
Mon 30 Mar 2020 19.01 EDT
A new blood test that can detect more than 50 types of cancer has been revealed by researchers in the latest study to offer hope for early detection.
The test is based on DNA that is shed by tumours and found circulating in the blood. More specifically, it focuses on chemical changes to this DNA, known as methylation patterns.
Researchers say the test can not only tell whether someone has cancer, but can also shed light on the type of cancer they have.
Dr Geoffrey Oxnard of Bostons Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, part of Harvard Medical School, said the test was now being explored in clinical trials. You need to use a test like this in an independent group at risk of cancer to actually show that you can find the cancers, and figure out what to do about it when you find them, he said.
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/31/new-blood-test-can-detect-50-types-of-cancer
BigmanPigman
(51,584 posts)NNadir
(33,512 posts)Given the diversity of cancers though, it would be interesting to look at the serious science behind this media claim. I'll take a look this weekend if I have time.
cstanleytech
(26,283 posts)to catch early.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)If one follows the links in the paper, one can get to it. Springer has made it freely available, in full, for online reading, although it can't be downloaded.
It is here: Integrating genomic features for non-invasive early lung cancer detection.
In order to read the full paper without a subscription or access, one does need to approach it using the newspaper's links and not at the journal's website (where my link leads.)
It is largely about a genetic screening test for lung cancer using genetic biomarkers found in blood.
It does contain the following text in the conclusion suggesting that it might be utilized for other cancers, although the number "50" is not mentioned:
This is, regrettably, another case of a journalist grotesquely distorting what a team of scientists is reporting.