←back to thread

279 points bookofjoe | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.415s | source
Show context
biotechbio ◴[] No.44609723[source]
Some thoughts on this as someone working on circulating-tumor DNA for the last decade or so:

- Sure, cancer can develop years before diagnosis. Pre-cancerous clones harboring somatic mutations can exist for decades before transformation into malignant disease.

- The eternal challenge in ctDNA is achieving a "useful" sensitivity and specificity. For example, imagine you take some of your blood, extract the DNA floating in the plasma, hybrid-capture enrich for DNA in cancer driver genes, sequence super deep, call variants, do some filtering to remove noise and whatnot, and then you find some low allelic fraction mutations in TP53. What can you do about this? I don't know. Many of us have background somatic mutations speckled throughout our body as we age. Over age ~50, most of us are liable to have some kind of pre-cancerous clones in the esophagus, prostate, or blood (due to CHIP). Many of the popular MCED tests (e.g. Grail's Galleri) use signals other than mutations (e.g. methylation status) to improve this sensitivity / specificity profile, but I'm not convinced its actually good enough to be useful at the population level.

- The cost-effectiveness of most follow on screening is not viable for the given sensitivity-specificity profile of MCED assays (Grail would disagree). To achieve this, we would need things like downstream screening to be drastically cheaper, or possibly a tiered non-invasive screening strategy with increasing specificity to be viable (e.g. Harbinger Health).

replies(10): >>44610108 #>>44610191 #>>44610539 #>>44610565 #>>44610758 #>>44611096 #>>44611258 #>>44612058 #>>44612114 #>>44612576 #
tptacek ◴[] No.44610108[source]
This seems like yet another place where the base rate is going to fuck us: intuitively (and you've actually thought about this problem and I haven't) I'd expect that even with remarkably good tests, most people who come up positive will not go on to develop related disease.
replies(2): >>44610187 #>>44610628 #
1. Spooky23 ◴[] No.44610628[source]
You might be able to target and preemptively treat some aggressive cancers!

I lost my wife to melanoma that metastasized to her brain after cancerous mole and margin was removed 4 years earlier. They did due diligence and by all signs there was no evidence of recurrence, until there was. They think that the tumor appeared 2-3 months before symptoms (headaches) appeared, so it was unlikely that you’d discover it otherwise.

With something like this, maybe you could get lower dose immunotherapy that would help your body eradicate the cancer?

replies(1): >>44611094 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.44611094[source]
I'm so sorry about your wife.

Literally anything that reduces cancer deaths is a win. I'm certainly not campaigning against early detection tests like this! Just talking about a challenge that comes up operationalizing them.