this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
380 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

71448 readers
2801 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
380
Cancers can be detected in bloodstream three years prior to diagnosis (hub.jhu.edu)
submitted 2 days ago by Gsus4@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives

They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is

That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak

Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 98 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What? This BETTER not be US funded Research! I DONT want MY Tax Dollars going to THIS when there's SAD BILLIONAIRES still out there!

-LITERALLY everyone who Voted for Trump!

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Trump also got the covid vaccine invented, produced, and distributed. It was probably the greatest thing he ever did but now he doesn't even want to be associated with it. Alas. His lunacy knows no bounds.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes and no, warp speed only needed to exist in the form it did because Trump had fired the existing pandemic response team.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Good point. On the other hand, Canada didn't fare any better even without firing its pandemic response team. I suspect project warp speed would have been welcomed either way, even if it was more important in this timeline.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 hours ago

A million americans died of COVID (yes, some of them would have died without); but half a million would still be very bad.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why should the world benefit from our taxpayer funded research? I want my taxes spent on training Americans so as to let the world watch (for free) fast running and swimming.

Am still waiting for a skipping event in the Olympics.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The world isn't benefitting from your research, you benefit from the world's research based off your own research, on and on it goes and we all get smarter and know more and strive towards bettering our condition, curing our ills and minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for all.

At least in my opinion it's why scientific research while a truly neutral morally activity and generally done as an end unto itself - from a broadly humanist standpoint - is worth pursuing, even when the immediate benefits aren't seen by the shortsighted.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Even if we were the only country researching...

I have heard GOP politicians saying something like "why should we fund a cure for a disease and everyone else benefits without spending a cent?"

Why doesn't their national pride on the world stage extend beyond sport?

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because that wouldn't make as much money.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Olympic gold medals don't make money. It is for national pride. Even hosting the games does not always make money.

Actually I am Aussie. 12 years ago it was calculated that each gold medal costs us AU$12m (so about US$11m in today's money). It embarrasses me.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/they-kill-us-for-their-sport-williamson-laments-arts-funding-cuts-20121115-29ejt.html

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I am no fan of Eurovision but it is good value for national pride:

Eurovision is funded by participating broadcasters and this contribution is a total of €6.2 million (£5.2 million), combined.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/who-funds-eurovision-song-contest-24173525

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Only 6M €? For an event of that size that feels a lot cheaper than I would have thought.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Don't forget that there is also income from advertising and ticket sales.

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes but, is it profitable?

Someone has to ask the real world questions

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I thought cancer comes a goes all the time, wouldn't that give a lot of people false positives and a start to the cascade of healthcare?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not really, no. It's only really cancer once the cells multiply uncontrollably. Yes, sometimes cells don't properly perform apoptosis, but there are other mechanisms that will target and kill those precancerous cells. Only once those other mechanisms fail does it become true cancer.

Besides, even if this test did come back positive, they'd still have to identify a tumor and monitor. If you have a teeny-tiny benign tumor that isn't hurting anything, the best course of action is to just leave it alone and monitor. Any surgical procedure risks spillage, which is basically human-induced metastasis.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That makes sense if I'm understanding you correctly. You might have cancerous cells, but it's not actually cancer.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago

Right. Like you might walk by someone with a cold, and inhale a small number of their virus particles. But your immune system can handle that. If you spend a lot of time with them face-to-face, the virus gets a foothold (because of inhaling more viruses, this part isn't a perfect metaphor) and starts multiplying, it can overwhelm the first line of defense and become an infection.

[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The article says they're detecting DNA shedding of genetic mutations. I think one example of this could be cancer caused by HPV should shed DNA that they could identify.

It's probably different but that's what I'm thinking from that line

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Look up extra-cellular vesicles. This is where the magic is.

[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can someone clarify which blood test was used? I want to get tested every two years.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

just go to an oncologist and get screened

source: i did cancer