TIL: It's Possible To Detect Cancer With Only ONE Drop Of Blood!

sirwinchester (75) in sirwinchester • 8 years ago

Cancer is one of the most terrifying, and one of the most dangerous diseases of all time.

It's so versatile that it can affect many different parts of our body - our stomach, lungs, skin, prostate, breast or bowel.

Cancer is not always deadly - but sadly, that is often the case.
Generally, cancer can be treated more easily if it's diagnosed at an early stage.
But often, it's already too late for that!

So what if I told you that a new method of detecting cancer will revolutionize the medical world ?

The new procedure called "Liquid Biopsy" will be able detect almost all types of cancer with 96% accuracy!

That's groundbreaking and might change the lives of millions!

The method itself is not available to the public yet, but it will be starting 2019.
This ambitious project has been initiated by Jeff Huber, former Vice President of Google and co-creator of Google Maps.
After losing his wife to cancer, he dedicated lots of time and effort and became CEO of the cancer-research company Grail, that wants to make this vision a reality.
$100 Million have been raised to make the Liquid Biopsy method and tests possible.

In an Interview with Forbes, Huber actually said that this technology might have saved his wife.

“If GRAIL had existed previously (...) when she got her annual physical exam and did a blood test anyway, and if the results had come back then saying that you have early stage cancer, there’s a very good chance that the outcome for her could have been different."

Jeff Huber

The current methods used to detect cancer in the blood are expensive, invasive and take a long time.

They are based on the principle that some cells are flaking off of the tumor, and their DNA can be detected within the patient's blood for a couple of hours.
But the new method "Liquid Biopsy" would be able to detect one tumor cell in as many as one billion blood cells!
This is possible due to DNA sequencing, which has advanced so much that you can now reveal much smaller amounts of DNA in the blood.

Sources for the TIL: 1, 2, 3, Images: Logo, 1, 2, 3, 4

- Instagram -

- Steemit FB Group -

© Sirwinchester

sirwinchester til news life health

8 years ago by sirwinchester (75)

$36.28

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

royalmacro (72) · 8 years ago (edited)

our technology is now so advanced then everything is possible now :)

$0.00

7 votes

[-]

sirwinchester (75) · 8 years ago

almost everything, yes!

$0.00

[-]

ptmikesteem (60) · 8 years ago

Early detection saves lives. It just seems more and more people are getting cancer. Everyone I know either knows someone who has it or is battling with it themselves

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

lennstar (66) · 8 years ago

96% accuracy sounds good but is actually quite bad.
96% means that 4 in 100 cancer will not be detected, and having a "no cancer proof" other signs may be ignored. That even happens to doctors, as tests have shown.
96% also means that 4% of the tested will get the diagnosis of cancer even if they dont have it, including all the fear and stress and potentially invasive operations to proof that diagnosis.

In crime even an 99,99% accuracy in genetic tests have lead to people sentenced for crimes (and in the US killed with death sentence) they didn't do, because they had a similar DNA and were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
(Which btw. is the reason why you should not speak to police - the more they know, the more random connections they can create, and if they have a few they search for more to get you and not the real criminal. Thats just human - confirmation bias etc.)

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

sirwinchester (75) · 8 years ago

yes you are right, 96% is not perfect and the liquid biopsy should not be seen as a replacement for any other pre-cancer tests. but it could be a quick solution , additionally to traditional screenings that are more invasive but also more secure!

$0.00

[-]

ben.karlin (53) · 8 years ago

A voice of reason.
If blood sampling becomes reasonably cheap, it may be of use in screening and monitoring.
If I get the 96% right, that concerns false-negative results, which you have elaborated on.
But there may also be false positives.
Which may be a great source of income to the odd cynic. Throw some screening at healthy patients, sponsor it if need be, then get a false positive, worry the patient out of his or her mind and then run expensive follow-up check like high-resolution MRT scans.
The patient will - at least in in the US - pay.

After all, as far as I can see, the results shout cancer without giving a location. Which in many cases would be like going to the police in New York and say, hej, I got terrible news. I know that there is a killer here in town. At least one.
But unless you have a location, this information has no value and the cops will shrug their shoulders.

And once you know the location, you do not need the blood test. So, the use of this method would be in screening unspecific symptoms or even healthy persons (depends on the price) and it all depends on the false-negative and the false positives...