Proteins In Blood Could Provide Early Cancer Warning 'By More Than Seven Years' (theguardian.com) 33
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Proteins in the blood could warn people of cancer more than seven years before it is diagnosed, according to research [published in the journal Nature Communications]. Scientists at the University of Oxford studied blood samples from more than 44,000 people in the UK Biobank, including over 4,900 people who subsequently had a cancer diagnosis. They compared the proteins of people who did and did not go on to be diagnosed with cancer and identified 618 proteins linked to 19 types of cancer, including colon, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver.
The study, funded by Cancer Research UK and published in Nature Communications, also found 107 proteins associated with cancers diagnosed more than seven years after the patient's blood sample was collected and 182 proteins that were strongly associated with a cancer diagnosis within three years. The authors concluded that some of these proteins could be used to detect cancer much earlier and potentially provide new treatment options, though further research was needed.
The study, funded by Cancer Research UK and published in Nature Communications, also found 107 proteins associated with cancers diagnosed more than seven years after the patient's blood sample was collected and 182 proteins that were strongly associated with a cancer diagnosis within three years. The authors concluded that some of these proteins could be used to detect cancer much earlier and potentially provide new treatment options, though further research was needed.
False positive rate? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with these "early warning" systems, is the high potential for false positives. We all have cancer cells in our bodies all the time. Most of the time, our bodies' immune systems are able to kill these defective cells. Cancer becomes a disease when our defenses fail to keep up. Knowing ahead of time, which cases will develop into a cancer diagnosis, and which ones our bodies will handle on their own, is a tricky balance.
The article didn't talk about the false positive rate. That information would have been useful.
Re:False positive rate? (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be very useful to guide future tracking and diagnosis, though.
If you've got a high level of protein 'A' in a test, and protein 'A' is associated with colo-rectal cancer, then future tests can target CRC.
I get an annual blood test for an inflammatory marker associated with CRC - it's a lot cheaper and less fuss than colonoscopies. I still have a 'scope every three years, but if one of the tests comes back positive, I can have it investigated immediately instead of waiting a year or more for the next 'scope.Nearly all cancers' survival rates depend on early detection and treatment.
Re:False positive rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
This exactly - if these tests are inexpensive, even if too 'positive', they can always be follwed with more testing. That's maybe a stress and expense but alternatives are worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Also could be exceptionally harmful, as focus on massive amount of false positives draws resources away from the actually relevant ones.
Re: (Score:1)
This exactly
Re: (Score:3)
False positives contribute to stress and expense of follow up tests. False negatives, or else lack of testing...well...
Re: (Score:2)
False positives contribute to stress and expense of follow up tests. False negatives, or else lack of testing...well...
True dat. So just a few years earlier to know how you are gonna exit this world.
There will be a lot of pressure to make certain there are false positives so the patient can get some yummy maintenance meds in the interim. Meds being meds, some can cause cancer as a side effect
Or we can look at it like saving you from cancer in order for you to live long enough to become demented, and live out the last ten years of your life in a nursing home.
4. PROFIT!
Re: (Score:2)
False positives, and false negatives, are both harmful. False positives are *not* more beneficial than lack of testing. Our bodies have an amazing ability to tell us when they are not well. Trust the signals.
I once had to manage a product that had about 20,000 unit tests. Of those, 10,000 of them failed on every build. Nobody bothered with them because nobody had time to figure out whether they were valid failures or not. Those unit tests were worse than useless. In the same way, over-testing of the human b
Don't eat proteins you idiots!! (Score:2)
I've been saying it for years. Stick to carbs, see what happens when proteins get in you?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the levity. Humor aside, I consume a bit too much carbs. Contrary to popular misconception I don't wear it much and am in fairly good shape.
Trying to maintain fitness and improve protein intake, I've been eating a protein bar and less of other things for lunch. Well, not sure what's been happening, but for several hours afterwards I feel like I'm going to wind up in the ER. Extreme fatigue, everything aches, even beginnings of blacking out.
One afternoon this past week, short of going to ER I ate
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend a diet consisting solely of pure ultra-refined sugar and certified protein-free synthetic vitamin tablets. Regarding your symptoms, as a self-certified synthetopathic healer, those fatigue symptoms sound unrelated or coincidental so you probably should see a doctor. if you won't, then at least determine how reproducible those symptoms are by keeping a daily activity diary of what you're eating/drinking, caffeine/stimulant/caloric intake, weather, and take regular heart rate, blood sugar (get a b
Re: (Score:2)
In case you're being serious, as an engineer and somewhat scientist, I'm pretty good at experimentation and tracking results. It's 100% the protein bars and shake mix. No matter what else I eat, drink, sleep, etc., it's 1:1 causation. It was getting really bad and I'm just super happy I figured out what was causing it. Now to figure out which ingredient(s?) are the problem. Should come as no surprise: I'm not willing to experiment on myself, not in the next few weeks anyway.
Dr. I saw a couple of times last
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. That was one of my hunches, and the amazing recovery after eating a donut pretty much proves it.
I have no allergies. Yes, I know, I'm a freak.
But what in the bar would cause hypoglycemia? Maybe some kind of fake sugar- one of those sugar-like molecules that tricked the islet cells into overproducing? I'm kind of postulating out loud here. Maybe a combination of ingredients.
The bars are "Gatorade" brand. They have real sugar. I don't see any fake sweeteners. I'm looking at the very long list of in
Re: (Score:2)
I have been through the medical wringer over the last decade+. I have had the opposite experience: "answers" that conflict with Dr. Google/books, other doctors or even medical professionals within the same medical group!
Re: (Score:2)
Go for healthier carbs: brown rice, whole grain bread, that kind of thing -- just not too much of it. Ideally as part of a vegetable-focused meal with some lean protein (fish, chicken, soy, whatever your preference is). Protein bars and shakes are much more convenient but heavily processed and usually short on other important nutrients.
Implications (Score:4, Interesting)
The study, funded by Cancer Research UK and published in Nature Communications, also found 107 proteins associated with cancers diagnosed more than seven years after the patient's blood sample was collected and 182 proteins that were strongly associated with a cancer diagnosis within three years. The authors concluded that some of these proteins could be used to detect cancer much earlier and potentially provide new treatment options, though further research was needed.
A big question is whether these proteins caused the cancer, or are generated by the cancer. If they're from the cancer does that mean it takes 3-7 years for the doubling rate to create symptoms, or does something happen to cause the cancer cells to break out?
It also raises an interesting medical scenario, take an annual blood test and if these proteins show up do a round of chemo and the proteins vanish. Does that mean you just cured a cancer that wasn't otherwise detectable? A tricky trade-off considering the side effects of chemo.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Interesting)
A big question is whether these proteins caused the cancer, or are generated by the cancer. If they're from the cancer does that mean it takes 3-7 years for the doubling rate to create symptoms, or does something happen to cause the cancer cells to break out?
That is a fascinating question. The study simply demonstrates an association, but marker-of-disease versus cause-and-effect is pertinent for each individual pair.
However, as a practical matter, these lines of research are generally implying that the chemical is a marker of pathology rather than a cause. For many or most cancers, cells that transform and start on the path to malignancy go through a phase of dysplasia which can be recognized histologically and chemically. It is a phase in which cell morphology and metabolic functions are altered in ways that indicate high risk for progression to anaplasia, cancer. But, at the dysplastic phase, they are not usually going to have the malignant behaviors of uninhibited growth and metastasis. So, if a dysplastic cell is making the marker protein, that is a concern for future malignancy but does not imply that cancer per se is yet present. If a single micro cluster of malignant cells is already present, it may be a few years until clinical presentation. As an early warning test or a surveillance test in those with high risk or prior cancer, having a marker sensitive enough to see disease 3-7 years in advance of overtly detectable disease gives us many opportunities to avoid cancer or catch it in its earliest most curable phases.
It also raises an interesting medical scenario, take an annual blood test and if these proteins show up do a round of chemo and the proteins vanish. Does that mean you just cured a cancer that wasn't otherwise detectable? A tricky trade-off considering the side effects of chemo.
Nobody would get treated with chemo based on just a test. Treatment is done after the lesion is actually identified. Treatment varies for each type of cancer, and balancing surgery, radiation, chemical therapies, and immune therapies depends on knowing many details of the tumor. (Also, "chemo" as you state is a scary word in the minds of the public, justifiably so, but the classic anti-metabolite drugs that earned that name and bad rap now have a lesser range of indications as targeted immune drugs are revolutionizing cancer care.)
What this information can righteously do is increase the number of tests done to find early disease, in a good way, greater or earlier surveillance in a patient proven at risk. Right now, our most sensitive pickup for occult or small disease (down to about a 1 mm nodule) is PET scanning. It is often unavailable in smaller communities or denied by insurance as expensive. But, information like this study could foster greater use or else spur new innovative diagnostics such as tagged antibodies combined with PET.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as a practical matter, these lines of research are generally implying that the chemical is a marker of pathology rather than a cause. For many or most cancers, cells that transform and start on the path to malignancy go through a phase of dysplasia which can be recognized histologically and chemically. It is a phase in which cell morphology and metabolic functions are altered in ways that indicate high risk for progression to anaplasia, cancer. But, at the dysplastic phase, they are not usually going to have the malignant behaviors of uninhibited growth and metastasis.
My understanding of chemo and radiation is they work in part by targeting fast growing cells. So would it even do anything to those cells before they turn malignant?
It also raises an interesting medical scenario, take an annual blood test and if these proteins show up do a round of chemo and the proteins vanish. Does that mean you just cured a cancer that wasn't otherwise detectable? A tricky trade-off considering the side effects of chemo.
Nobody would get treated with chemo based on just a test. Treatment is done after the lesion is actually identified. Treatment varies for each type of cancer, and balancing surgery, radiation, chemical therapies, and immune therapies depends on knowing many details of the tumor. (Also, "chemo" as you state is a scary word in the minds of the public, justifiably so, but the classic anti-metabolite drugs that earned that name and bad rap now have a lesser range of indications as targeted immune drugs are revolutionizing cancer care.)
What this information can righteously do is increase the number of tests done to find early disease, in a good way, greater or earlier surveillance in a patient proven at risk. Right now, our most sensitive pickup for occult or small disease (down to about a 1 mm nodule) is PET scanning. It is often unavailable in smaller communities or denied by insurance as expensive. But, information like this study could foster greater use or else spur new innovative diagnostics such as tagged antibodies combined with PET.
Though would it depend on the type of the cancer? For instance, thyroid cancer is typically fairly treatable, but pancreatic cancer is almost always a death sentence, and with some cancers you can go from healthy to dead in just a few days [wikipedia.org]. If the proteins indicated a fast and deadly cancer then more screening might not be sufficient.
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent questions.
My understanding of chemo and radiation is they work in part by targeting fast growing cells. So would it even do anything to those cells before they turn malignant?
They cannot target specific cells. But, radiation (you can fry anything with enough radiation, so we are talking about therapeutic doses), and some of the pharma therapies work during mitosis. That is when DNA is unwound and susceptible to injury. So, a tumor that is fast growing has a greater likelihood of being in an injury susceptible state when the trigger is pulled. Cells that are growing so slowly that they are not often in a susceptible state may not respond to those therapies
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for all the insight. One thing that was in the back of my mind was this excerpt from an econtalk interview [econtalk.org]:
But, the metaphor is a barnyard metaphor. And, the metaphor is basically, like, imagine you're a farmer and you have a barnyard and you have lots of different animals in your barnyard, and you want to find a way to keep the animals in your barnyard. And, that's, I think--the idea of catching the animal before it leaves the barnyard is the metaphor for catching the cancer before it causes a probl
Re: (Score:2)
I followed the link and read the article. It was kind of bizarre.
You said "econtalk has a habit of finding contrarians".
I never heard of econtalk, but based on that one read, I believe your comment.
The rabbit-turtle-bird analogy is fair. Analogies are always helpful to explain new or complex subjects to people for whom the topics are new. But, the whole interview was missing a few screws.
For instance, the guy was saying that screening tests haven't reduced cancer mortality rates, e.g. people still die fr
Re: (Score:2)
I followed the link and read the article. It was kind of bizarre.
You said "econtalk has a habit of finding contrarians".
I never heard of econtalk, but based on that one read, I believe your comment.
It's not exactly contrarians, but the host is susceptible to people who have performed an econ-like analysis of a field and come up with a conclusion that overturns the consensus. It's good for getting a feel for how economists think, but not so good for learning about outside fields.
I think it's more a cautionary tale for a mode of thinking where you think you've discovered the perfect method to evaluate a claim and instantly weigh that above the opinions of experts. Sometimes that works [wikipedia.org], but mostly it's w
Re: (Score:2)
A big question is whether these proteins caused the cancer, or are generated by the cancer.
It depends on the protein and cancer. Cancer is a disease of DNA (in general). Your DNA gets mutated, in a way that causes cells to divide more often. Sometimes the mutation is caused by cigarette smoke flipping T in the DNA to C, other times it's solar radiation. It takes multiple mutations, because the body has a way (multiple ways) to check for cancerous cells and destroy them.
The cancerous cells grow up in a local tumor, mutating more and more each time (since they've disabled the checks to prevent m
Re: (Score:1)
A big question is whether these proteins caused the cancer, or are generated by the cancer.
Best theory I've heard is they are viral oncoproteins, which can also affect the fate of non-infected cells. Most likely culprits are latent viruses such as herpesvirus, polyomavirus or one of the many viruses uncovered recently https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Dr Hanan Polansky has a theory that these dormant or latent viruses cause more diseases than previously thought. Sir Anython Epstein was the first to find these viruses can cause cancer. The hit and run theory explains why the virus is sometimes no
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them could (and probably are) be false signals. A common problem in medical research, where there is a high amount of intertwined, mutually affecting systems.
And cancers are known to mess up these interactions in weird and often unpredictable ways. That can overlap with a lot of common causes. It's like finding protein in urine in routine screening. It could be a sign of kidney cancer. Or the fact that this man ejaculated recently.
Insurers will be paying close attention (Score:2)
I'm not confident they won't find a way to use this to deny or terminate coverage
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not confident they won't find a way to use this to deny or terminate coverage
You could always move to a first world country, if the test in America shows relevant proteins.
Opportunity awaits! (Score:3)
Sigh. (Score:2)