The Joyce sisters, on their way to Friday Harbor
They had fun
Dick Ingwall has sent me an important article from the NY
Times. I know it is important because
the Bellingham Herald has copied it,
word for word, and made it a front page article. However, they stopped midway through,
presumably because they had satisfied their need for column-inches. The Herald
on Mondays is too skimpy to ignite a campfire, so the column-inch limit
must be very constraining. I wish they
would hire me to summarize, modify, and explicate these purloined pieces , but
that would cost money and lower the bottom line (which I am afraid is pretty
low as it is.) So, anyway, you can read
the whole thing right here:
To summarize, modify and explicate: All growing cells shed tiny fragments of DNA
into the blood stream. This was
discovered in embryos, which almost by definition are growing masses of
cells. However, the same can be said for
tumors. Oncologists need to monitor the
reaction of tumor masses to treatment: are they shrinking, or not, and what is
the potential for recurrence?
Traditional methods, involving biopsies and CT scans, are clumsy,
disruptive, and slow. But now, thanks to
The Cancer Genome Atlas and rapid gene
sequencing methods, it is increasingly possible to search the bloodstream for
the presence or (hopefully) absence of tell tale scraps of cancer DNA. – using only a blood draw.
Oncologists are cautiously enthusiastic. Again, this is no cure, but a step forward
nonetheless. Read more about DNA in the
bloodstream at:
More on "liquid biopsies":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.medicaldaily.com/liquid-biopsies-and-blood-tests-can-detect-cancer-may-revolutionize-cancer-treatment-332796
There is more than one way to skin a cat. (That’s an ugly phrase from my boyhood; I promise not to use it again.) Anyway, research workers from industry and academia report that it is possible to obtain vital cancer information from analysis of blood samples that heretofore would have required a biopsy, with little loss in specificity. This of course constitutes an enormous net gain in net comfort, at least partially offset by increased anxiety in the case of false positives. More work is in progress, and Pharma is lining up to facilitate the process – and of course profit thereby. Roche already has a similar test approved by the FDA; its price-tag currently is stupendous, but may decrease with more competition. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/health/liquid-cancer-test-offers-hope-for-alternative-to-painful-biopsies.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Another blog on liquid biopsy:
ReplyDeletehttp://ljb-quiltcutie.blogspot.com/2017/10/quakers-and-ovarian-cancer.html