> these nanodiamonds can detect molecular abnormalities at a much earlier stage, essentially stopping cancer from spreading any further
> Current methods are unable to detect small tumors or breakaway tumor cells that lead to something called micrometastatic tumors, which can go undetected at the source and lead to the spread of cancer throughout other areas of the body.
From pg's essay Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas[1]:
> It will seem preposterous to future generations that we wait till patients have physical symptoms to be diagnosed with cancer. Cancer will show up on some sort of radar screen immediately.
> (Of course, what shows up on the radar screen may be different from what we think of now as cancer. I wouldn't be surprised if at any given time we have ten or even hundreds of microcancers going at once, none of which normally amount to anything.)
As someone that has just been diagnosed with stage iv colon cancer, I'm a bit dismayed that a blood test done after the diagnosis (via colonoscopy and ct scan) shows an abnormal result - but that simple blood test was never performed before. If it correlates with the cancer, why isn't it done as a matter of course during routine health checkups? If there a dozen such tests for a dozen different cancers, I'm willing to give a liter of blood per year for testing.
The test in question is CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen, where a standard range is 0.0 to 2.5ng/mL and mine is 8.0. What if I had had this test a year ago?
The CEA is useful for prognosis, staging and follow up.
It is useless for diagnosis.
"The CEA test has a specificity of between 30-80% and it is not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for the diagnosis of early colorectal cancer" http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/carcinoembryonic-antigen-cea
Causes of false postive CEA include but are not confined to:
"Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Pancreatitis.
Liver disease.
Tobacco use can lead to elevated CEA levels. (CEA is elevated in 19% of smokers and only 3% of the non-smoking healthy population.)
Diverticulitis.
Hepatitis.
Peptic ulcers.
Hypothyroidism.
Cirrhosis of the liver.
COPD.
Lung infection.
Pleural effusions.
Biliary obstruction.
Treatment with oral 5-FU.
High serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (sGPT) levels.
Non-malignant liver disease, including cirrhosis, chronic active hepatitis.[6]
Gosh : many of these are just as scary. Wouldn't it still be useful to have the screen taken, compare it with previous years, and see if anything changed? If you've got a change, then, you could start asking why?
This was my thinking exactly. These are data points and while the test itself in isolation may not be conclusive, when combined with other factors that may be measured, inferred or analyzed as trends over time, this may have had me tested years ago. Standard for colonoscopy screening is to start at age 50. I'm 44.
I had a similar situation. I was diagnosed with stage ii testicular cancer after an ultrasound and a blood test, which consisted of a simple blood test for a particular female pregnancy hormone. I would have gladly paid for that test every year, hell every month, if they could have detected it earlier.
All that said, good luck with your treatment. That's a much tougher diagnosis than mine was.
I second this. My grandfather died from colon cancer a few years ago. He refused to go see a doctor even when he knew something was very wrong. Hope you get the treatment you need.
> these nanodiamonds can detect molecular abnormalities at a much earlier stage, essentially stopping cancer from spreading any further
> Current methods are unable to detect small tumors or breakaway tumor cells that lead to something called micrometastatic tumors, which can go undetected at the source and lead to the spread of cancer throughout other areas of the body.
From pg's essay Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas[1]:
> It will seem preposterous to future generations that we wait till patients have physical symptoms to be diagnosed with cancer. Cancer will show up on some sort of radar screen immediately.
> (Of course, what shows up on the radar screen may be different from what we think of now as cancer. I wouldn't be surprised if at any given time we have ten or even hundreds of microcancers going at once, none of which normally amount to anything.)
[1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html