[deleted]
New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does mention this, but doesn't use those exact two words: Crucially, 99.4 per cent cases identified as cancer were correctly spotted - meaning just 0.6 per cent of cases were misdiagnoses of healthy patients.
By the birthday paradox, that means 11% of healthy people will be misdiagnosed for one form of cancer on the 20 test panel. That's going to require some in person discussion and review... maybe they can handle that with the NHS, but I think the US patient would end up spending an extra $1000+ due to required human contact, beyond any test cost.
It isnt 20 tests. It is one test regime that detects the presence of 20 diseases. It doesnt diagnose any one disease, just red-flags patients for more accurate testing.
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#13Theranos?
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#14From [0], the types of cancer they can screen make up at least 81.4% of new cancer diagnoses, which means that with their 99.4% true positive rate, this test should be able to correctly identify ~80% of new cancer incidences. If I'm doing my math right, that's really impressive. [0]: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-c...
It seems to have a great false positive rate, but a not-good false negative rate. It misses the bulk of stage one cancers. So its utility for early diagnosis (the important bit) is marginal at this time.
How so they determine false negatives? Are there other less broad and more expensive test?
That said, isn't it also possible at Stage 1 for the body to cure itself? That is, __in theory__ is it possible Stage 1 defecation is too early? That med intervention could be premature?
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#15From [0], the types of cancer they can screen make up at least 81.4% of new cancer diagnoses, which means that with their 99.4% true positive rate, this test should be able to correctly identify ~80% of new cancer incidences. If I'm doing my math right, that's really impressive. [0]: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-c...
It seems to have a great false positive rate, but a not-good false negative rate. It misses the bulk of stage one cancers. So its utility for early diagnosis (the important bit) is marginal at this time.
Many of these early cancers are asymptomatic and universal diagnostic imaging in the absence of symptoms is cost prohibitive. Better blood tests address that and other important gaps.
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to have a great false positive rate, but a not-good false negative rate. It misses the bulk of stage one cancers. So its utility for early diagnosis (the important bit) is marginal at this time.
How so they determine false negatives? Are there other less broad and more expensive test? That said, isn't it also possible at Stage 1 for the body to cure itself? That is, __in theory__ is it possible Stage 1 defecation is too early? That med intervention could be premature?
You test for false negative rate by testing known cancer patients. A patient with cancer, but a clean test, is a false negative.
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to have a great false positive rate, but a not-good false negative rate. It misses the bulk of stage one cancers. So its utility for early diagnosis (the important bit) is marginal at this time.
Many of these early cancers are asymptomatic and universal diagnostic imaging in the absence of symptoms is cost prohibitive. Better blood tests address that and other important gaps.
If you start testing asymptomatic people, healthy people, even a 1% false positive rate is tricky.
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to have a great false positive rate, but a not-good false negative rate. It misses the bulk of stage one cancers. So its utility for early diagnosis (the important bit) is marginal at this time.
How so they determine false negatives? Are there other less broad and more expensive test? That said, isn't it also possible at Stage 1 for the body to cure itself? That is, __in theory__ is it possible Stage 1 defecation is too early? That med intervention could be premature?
I think you meant detection—and not defecation—right?
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so they determine false negatives? Are there other less broad and more expensive test? That said, isn't it also possible at Stage 1 for the body to cure itself? That is, __in theory__ is it possible Stage 1 defecation is too early? That med intervention could be premature?
I think you meant detection —and not defecation —right?
[deleted]
Re: New blood test could detect more than 20 types of cancer
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these early cancers are asymptomatic and universal diagnostic imaging in the absence of symptoms is cost prohibitive. Better blood tests address that and other important gaps.
If you start testing asymptomatic people, healthy people, even a 1% false positive rate is tricky.
You’d follow an asymptomatic false positive blood test with at worst a whole body MRI and at best a targeted imaging study (if the blood markers are specific). You’d have a further false positive rate from that but it drops off quickly. The cost is manageable. And some of that cost is offset because you catch cancers earlier when they are less expensive to treat. A substantial cost savings will come through first line analysis of imaging by AI, to highlight images for radiologists to focus on.