←back to thread

279 points bookofjoe | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | 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 #
1. edwardog ◴[] No.44611258[source]
Would you say ctDNA tools are sensitive and specific enough now to be able to make a decision about post op adjuvant therapies? “Now that I’ve had surgery, did the R0 resection get it all, or do I need to do chemo and challenging medication like mitotane?”
replies(2): >>44611690 #>>44612280 #
2. mbreese ◴[] No.44611690[source]
I’ve seen it most commonly thought of as using ctDNA to detect relapse earlier.

So, more like — did the tumor come back? And if that does happen, with ctDNA, can you detect that there is a relapse before you would otherwise find it with standard imaging. Most studies I’ve seen have shown that this happens and ctDNA is a good biomarker for early detection of relapse.

The case for proactively looking for circulating tumor DNA without an initial diagnosis or underlying genetic condition is a bit dicier IMHO. For example, what if really like to know (I haven’t read this article, but I’m pretty familiar with the field) is how many people had a detectable cancer in their plasma (ctDNA), but didn’t receive a cancer diagnosis. It’s been known for a while that you can detect precancerous lesions well before a formal cancer diagnosis. But, what’s still an open question AFAIK, is how many people have precancerous lesions or positive ctDNA hits that don’t form a tumor?

(I’ve done a little work in this area)

3. refurb ◴[] No.44612280[source]
It seems like adjuvant treatment is rather routine at this point?

And the question would be “do I believe the test when it tells me the cancer is gone?” When you know it’s not 100% accurate?

Or do you always do the adjuvant treatment considering the very small chance the test is wrong has a very high cost (death)?