For example, the use of genetic markers to figure out how to treat different cancers was first proposed in the early 1990s and is now a highly successful clinical method.
Really? Can you point to a paper demonstrating it’s better than classifying cancers the way histologists did in the 80s? Everything I’ve seen says that it just reconstructs the same classification. But it took ten years for the geneticists to admit that. I’ve seen more recent genetic classification that might be better than the old ones, but they didn’t bother to compare to the old genetic classifications, let alone the histology.
HER2 receptor. These days those with breast cancer that overexpresses this growth factor receptor tend to get monoclonal antibodies against it, which both suppress its growth effects and tag it for disruption by the immune system.
Yes, this is a protein test rather than a genetic test. But it lets the subset of people with this amplification get a treatment that has a large positive absolute effect on those with early-stage cancer.
I don’t know enough about that subfield to answer that question. If what you are saying is accurate, that’s highly disturbing. Most of my exposure to that subfield has been to popular press articles such as this one which paint a picture that sounds much more positive, but may well be highly distorted from what’s actually going on.
Really? Can you point to a paper demonstrating it’s better than classifying cancers the way histologists did in the 80s? Everything I’ve seen says that it just reconstructs the same classification. But it took ten years for the geneticists to admit that. I’ve seen more recent genetic classification that might be better than the old ones, but they didn’t bother to compare to the old genetic classifications, let alone the histology.
HER2 receptor. These days those with breast cancer that overexpresses this growth factor receptor tend to get monoclonal antibodies against it, which both suppress its growth effects and tag it for disruption by the immune system.
Yes, this is a protein test rather than a genetic test. But it lets the subset of people with this amplification get a treatment that has a large positive absolute effect on those with early-stage cancer.
I don’t know enough about that subfield to answer that question. If what you are saying is accurate, that’s highly disturbing. Most of my exposure to that subfield has been to popular press articles such as this one which paint a picture that sounds much more positive, but may well be highly distorted from what’s actually going on.