←back to thread

Cancer DNA is detectable in blood years before diagnosis

(www.sciencenews.org)
279 points bookofjoe | 3 comments | 18 Jul 25 18:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
siliconc0w ◴[18 Jul 25 21:16 UTC] No.44609926[source]▶
Sadly health insurance in the US is unlikely to pay for most preventative care because the followup costs of false-positives and that they are betting that down the line someone else will pick up the tab when you get sick decades later (like the government).

It's kind of why I'm favor of universal option to align financial incentives. Like given how sick the US population is, it probably makes sense to put a lot more people of GPL-1s and invest in improving their efficacy and permanence. Like nationalize-the-patent COVID-operational-warp-speed level urgency. There are over 100M Americans that are pre-diabetic, the cost of treating a diabetic is about 20k/yr. So $4 trillion in new costs, on top of the misery and human suffering.

replies(6): >>44610089 #>>44610202 #>>44610203 #>>44610287 #>>44612299 #>>44613546 #
ruralfam ◴[18 Jul 25 22:02 UTC] No.44610287[source]▶
I have a friend nearing mid-60s. Retired military so now covered by Medicare, then Tri-Care. Having prostate issues. PSA went from 12 to 19. Desperate to get a PET scan to determine his is benign BPH, or cancer. Cannot get his scan approved since both insurances will not approve a PET as an early diagnostic tool (scan is about $7500). Cannot imagine what will happen if everyone getting a cancer DNA signal of this type tries to get clarification via additional tests. USA health care really does not work that way. HTH, RF
replies(1): >>44610737 #
brudgers ◴[18 Jul 25 23:01 UTC] No.44610737[source]▶
A PSA of 12 is pretty far past the threshold for an MRI (don’t know about a PET scan) and an MRI would be pretty determinative about whether or not a biopsy is warranted. A biopsy would be pretty good at identifying cancer.

Sounds like either there are complicating factors or an absence of standard protocol adherence.

US health insurance is a mess, but that doesn’t sound like the entire story. I suspect urologists see a fair amount of friction for routine procedures related to prostrate health.

replies(1): >>44611139 #
1. ruralfam ◴[18 Jul 25 23:51 UTC] No.44611139{3}[source]▶
He had the MRI. Not conclusive. The PSA jump (alredy very high) is biggest concern. PET would -- according to him -- be most conclusive. Yet he cannot get it approved, so lives in a cruel medical purgatory.
replies(1): >>44611269 #
2. brudgers ◴[19 Jul 25 00:12 UTC] No.44611269[source]▶
Prostate biopsy is an out-patient procedure and is a standard protocol for determining the presence of cancer.

Like I said, there is more to this story.

replies(1): >>44611663 #
3. ruralfam ◴[19 Jul 25 01:20 UTC] No.44611663[source]▶
He had a biopsy a while ago. It was negative (and very painful he said). He has been working closely with his urologist who has recommended the PET. Given the PSA jump he is really worried, and cannot get what I presume is his urologist's next recommendation. He has taken all the right steps, just to be denied re: PET. (To be honest I do not know if PET is that effective, but he says it would be definitive.) He was told, though, that should he get cancer the PET would be approved to enhance the diagnosis. My heart goes out to him. RF.