Essentially, with certain grades of cancer, we have to assume there *might be* metastasis – even if we can’t obviously see it. As a result, all of these people are all given chemo blindly. Better safe than sorry.
In theory, this test would enable us to see which patients actually need chemo, versus those who don’t. Say only 40% have positive ‘liquid biopsy’ – this would enable 60% to go without chemo, which is very burdensome
I’m actually quite excited about this as a concept. Not many changes we see in the news have such a potential for a drastic positive impact.
Biomedical science needs a huge overhaul in the NHS. We are, I think, uniquely well placed to take advantage of the personalized healthcare revolution, using free-to-access GPs to build up big databases of patient biometrics and monitor for disease. Instead we are going the complete opposite and the deficit of resources can mean even routine tests that cost under a quid to run and return are rationed and dished out on quite strict terms.
2 comments
Doc here
Essentially, with certain grades of cancer, we have to assume there *might be* metastasis – even if we can’t obviously see it. As a result, all of these people are all given chemo blindly. Better safe than sorry.
In theory, this test would enable us to see which patients actually need chemo, versus those who don’t. Say only 40% have positive ‘liquid biopsy’ – this would enable 60% to go without chemo, which is very burdensome
I’m actually quite excited about this as a concept. Not many changes we see in the news have such a potential for a drastic positive impact.
Biomedical science needs a huge overhaul in the NHS. We are, I think, uniquely well placed to take advantage of the personalized healthcare revolution, using free-to-access GPs to build up big databases of patient biometrics and monitor for disease. Instead we are going the complete opposite and the deficit of resources can mean even routine tests that cost under a quid to run and return are rationed and dished out on quite strict terms.