Slashdot Log In
Test For Prostate Cancer Gene Soon To Be Available
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jan 03, 2009 05:13 AM
from the turn-your-head-and-cough dept.
from the turn-your-head-and-cough dept.
Tiger4 writes "CNN reports on a simple test to determine the presence of genes linked to Prostate Cancer. These five genes, if present, can increase the risk of prostate cancer up to nine times. 'More than 25,000 American men will die from prostate cancer this year. But prostate cancer can be treated successfully if the disease is caught early. A blood test that can detect whether a man is at high risk for developing prostate cancer is on the horizon. The study was published in the February 28, 2008, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.' It turns out the company actually wants to test saliva, making the test significantly easier and more convenient. Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered."
Related Stories
[+]
Baby To Be Born Without the Gene For Breast Cancer 259 comments
manoftin writes to tell us that next week a baby will be born without the gene for breast cancer, according to the BBC. "But he said that, in this case, not carrying the BRCA1 gene would not guarantee any daughter born to the couple would be unaffected by breast cancer because there are other genetic and environmental causes. Dr Alan Thornhill, scientific director of the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre, said: 'While the technology and approach used in this case is fairly routine, it is the first time in the UK that a family has successfully eliminated a mutant breast cancer gene for their child. It is a victory for both the parents and the HFEA that licensed this treatment.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Relevant! (Score:2, Funny)
Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered.
Very relevant for the typical manboobs wearing Slashdotter. ;)
Is it a flamebait...? (Score:2)
...if you
1) include yourself.
2) make it very obvious that this is humor.
Or is it just someone having problems with being overweight, and being angry at me for it instead of at himself. ;)
Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, BRCA is very relevant. The same gene is believed to play a role in prostate cancer.
Re:Canser spread of (Score:1)
Taking cystic canser, as an example: Fibrous lines joining and or forming additional cysts. Lines and cysts spreading toxins into the body.
A road map; diagram of civilization: Lanes; Roads; Highways, joining: Villages; Towns; Cities, all of which produce mountains of Techinlogical toxic waste!
Ci-vil-ize-ation: The canser, killing Planet Earth! As it does the human body! All of it caused by Human Error!
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppres
A test already exists (Score:1, Informative)
If the answer is "Yes", get checked regularly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I could completely believe that 25000 of those with a risk for prostate cancer, are either ignorant or badly informed. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
but even in the last 50 years men died from other things like heart attacks and stress from hard work and smoking first. You may be the first person in your family to live long enough to get prostrate cancer, or at least to have it be the thing that kills you.
Remember - it's all about relative risk (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, now there can be a quick, simple test that can be administered to add another reason for why your application for insurance will be denied.
Of course, you will not be told that it is based on genetic testing.
Holy cow! (Score:2, Funny)
Test For Prostate Cancer Gene Soon To Be Available on Saturday January 03, @05:13AM
That really WAS soon!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it was 12:13 CET here, you insensitive clod! ;)
Significantly easier? (Score:2, Interesting)
The case of the British couple who had their daughter tested for the presence of mutant breast cancer genes is not representative of all genetic testing for breast cancer genes. This case involves pre-implantation diagnosis, and if the child was carrying the mutant alleles for the breast cancer genes, the only option to avoid having a child carrying the mutations would have been to abort the foetus (or carry it to term, but knowing that it carried the mutant alleles). But this isn't the usual way of testing
90 times more probable? (Score:1)
Forget detection, work on prevention (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant!
What a lame excuse for looking at Internet porn and wanking . . . our girlfriends and wives will never swallow that one!
Um, oh, sorry, no pun intended.
Maybe this solution just needs more publicity. Back in the 90's they had a "Million Man March" in Washington, DC.
Maybe we need a "Million Man Wank" in Washington, DC this year to raise (huh, huh) awareness.
The Founding Fathers would definitely be amused.
Re: (Score:2)
I once read a study which claimed that many men tend to "freshen the troops" in the hours leading up to a fling after a brief (e.g. week long) separation from their girl friend. This is claimed to improve sperm fitness. It doesn't surprise me at all that there is a best before date. Biology tends not to leave major biological systems in parking orbits, lest they not be in good working order when the time comes, whatever the Calvinists might think.
Calmly does it (Score:1)
Health and life insurance (Score:2)
Gee... I wonder how health and life insurance companies will react to a test that will make people they insure - appear to be about to be dieing from cancer?
At least on paper and where their insurance premiums and insurance contracts are concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are already laws on the books that insurance companies can't use data collected this way against your policy. After all, if you are checked that you might get the disease, then they can run a simple test and catch the problem when it's cheap and doesn't require expensive operations and chemo.
Re: (Score:1)
Warning: Anonymously (Score:2)
One thing to keep in mind... I think any type of genetic testing or screening should be done anonymously. If you test positively for being at risk for any disease, and that information is entered into a computer, there is a risk that information can be used against you later. Insurance companies and employers would love nothing more than to discriminate against people who have POTENTIAL problems. Even worse, a genetic fingerprint can make its way into some security database without your knowledge or con
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would. That's their job. (If by discriminate against you mean charge a higher premium) If they found out that teenage drivers have a higher risk of being involved in an automobile accident, then they would charge teenage drivers a higher premium... Oh wait, they have, so they do. Smokers are at higher risk of lung cancer than the general population: higher premiums. If it is tw
Re: (Score:2)
The point of insurance is to SHARE risk, not to discriminate. If everyone paid premiums exactly based on perfect knowledge of risk, then everyone would pay exactly what they end up costing.... so there is no point to have insurance in the first place; just open up a savings account (which one should do, anyways).
The problem with discrimination is that it is a slippery slope of what to pick and where to stop. Of course no system is perfect, just something to think about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't sharing risk, that is *assigning* risk. The problem with that theory is that it isn't fair.
Example- let's say a study shows that people that drink alcohol have a higher overall risk for health costs. So how does one fairly discriminate for health insurance? You can't. Instead, an application might say "do you drink alcohol?". How do you answer that? "yes"? "sometimes?" "never?". The factors are far too complex to simplify; it depends on your weight, your genetics, the exact amount, the f
Nothing new? (Score:2)
It may of course very well be that they have developed an even better indicator of the risk you have of getting prostate cancer... but the article made it sound like this was a completely new thing.
The problem (Score:4, Informative)
This is an issue for every man over 65 or so. Its an issue for a some men between 50 and 65, and for very few under 50. But if you have a father, its going to be an issue for him.
The problem is that you can diagnose the condition fairly well. You can do PSA tests, particularly free PSA, and you can take biopsies. The thing you can't do is predict very well from these tests how vigorous the cancer is. Now, this might not matter if the treatments were fairly benign, and if they were highly sucessful. But they are not. The side effects of all physical treatments, including radiation, are considerable and very unpleasant in a majority of cases.
They are better than dying of course - death from metastized prostate cancer is very painful and unpleasant. But the problem is, if your cancer is discovered by routine PSA screeing, you don't then know whether what has been discovered is a cancer that you will live with until 90 without noticing, or if its one which if not treated will kill you in a few years. Almost all men die with prostate cancer. Few die of it.
This gives rise to the problem about screening. It could be that the effects of screening will simply be to treat more people who would be better off untreated. So the discovery of a genetic marker is potentially a great step forward. If it can pick people to screen who are really at risk of a galloping form, it will lead to more treatment of those who would benefit, and less of those who don't really need it.
For what it is worth, I had to research this question for someone a few years ago. I came to the conclusion that surgery and radiation and cryo are all dubious in terms of efficacy and very poor in terms of side effects - impotence, incontinence, in the case of radiation, collateral damage to other tissue. My own conclusion was that conformal radiation is the best of the physical measures, but probably the best overall is intermittent hormone ablation.
The cancer grows in the presence of testosterone. If this is blocked, either by the administration of testosterone blocking hormones, or by physical castration, the cancer will cease to grow and will shrink. PSA will fall. Unfortunately after a while, the cancer becomes hormone refractory - it learns to grow in the absence of hormone. This is why hormonal treatments are only temporary. However, if you then turn on testosterone again, the hormone supposedly will be unable to handle it, and will shrink again.
This is what I would do if afflicted. But I know of no studies showing this works, and I've never met anyone who has undergone it. Apparently what you do is total hormone blockade with drugs for about a year or 15 months, then stop and let testosterone production resume. As soon as PSA rises again, go back on the drugs. Its probably very risky. But the alternatives are not very appetizing either.
This is not like appendicitis. Its one of those things where no alternative is good, and what to do depends on your judgment of risks and rewards. Very tough. My friend by the way had a biopsy. He was free of cancer. But the act of taking the biopsy under general anaesthetic was not risk free, and produced a total urinary blockage. He was then permanently catheterized, which gradually took a toll on him because of repeated infections, and he ended up dying with MRSA of a failing heart. Whether to find out for sure if you have it is not a simple decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm I'd hate to think what the rest of your body would be like after going from 0 to 100 and back again on the testosterone tap every few months.
I'm imagining very hairy saggy man-boobs :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very sorry to read about your friend's bad luck. I can tell you, though, from personal experience, that having it done with just a local has its own drawbacks. I was told that it might sting a little. Long before it was over, I was screaming in pain loudly enough for them to hear me in the waiting room. When it was over, I was
Don't like the new test (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This touches on a significant male rights issue that the press refuse to report on. Male cancers lag far behind [businessweek.com] the cancers that are specific to women in terms of awareness [everyman-campaign.org] and research. Few people even know that prostate cancer is actually more common than breast cancer. More men than women die of cancer each year.
Despite this, feminists would probably argue that they are campaigning in order to raise awareness of female cancers. A woman might mention to her colleagues that she is going to have a lump in h
Re: (Score:2)
I take it, then, you've never had a prostate examination. Lucky you. Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles. That would suggest testicular cancer, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles.
I didn't say that it did. I was talking about cancers specific to males. They need at least an equal amount of awareness raising and destigmatization, if not more.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:4, Funny)
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
By using your brain. In quantum physics they had this exact problem. And they hated it. ;)
Maybe you remember the double-slit experiment, where light from one light source creates an interference pattern instead of the previously expected two lines. Every time the scientist tried to measure where the photons went trough, the interference went away. There was no way to measure it and retain the pattern. So they got very very smart and tricked physics with its own methods.
They used the strange effect of quantum entanglement. Before sending the photons trough the two slits, they entangled the photons with another photon. Then they sent both down a similar double-slit set-up... with one small difference. They measured the entangled photon! And because they never measured the actual photon, the interference survived!
But because two entangled particles share the same quantum state, they could measure the entangled photon and get the same data as for the actual photon.
I'm sorry, I did not read the rest of your comment after countering your base assumption. It was too long anyway. ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Test for prostate cancer gene? (Score:2)
Does it still involve me taking my pants off and hearing the words "trust me I'm a doctor"?
Re: (Score:2)
How to falsify evolution? Huh? Alabama done proved evolution wrong every day since God created it 4000 years ago!
(I tease you because I love you, Alabama.)
Re:Cure? (Score:5, Informative)
There isn't.
There are several problems with gene therapy, or, in your example, somatic gene therapy, as we call this technique. To summarize them: The problem is to "do it right". Granted, some cells are easier to target with specific virii, and some erroneous genes are easier to displace than others. But there's always an error margin in such a therapy, there always will be side-effects. And when talking about modifying genes of multicellular organisms, the most common side-effect is this: cancer. You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
Gene therapy is not ready yet for prime time, the benefits don't outweigh the faults we introduce (some extreme cases of genetic disorders are possible exceptions).
Well, that's why some disease genes (like the one responsible for sickle-cell anemia) do exist at all: They provide for some positive side-effects.
If medically indicated, I'd have not much problems with that. But ...
The negative aspects far outweigh the benefits if you just change your genes for the sake of it.
And, remember: Gene therapy sounds great in the media because scientists need funding.
Disclosure:
IAAMB (molecular biologist)
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists should be able to get funding. Full stop! :)
Think of what happened if you exchanged the military and the science budget!
The USA could become a country of geniuses with a very successful economy and education in 10-20 years.
Same thing with Iran supporting the retardization (Is that how you would write it in English?) of their people so they become better followers. On a smaller scale.
Re: (Score:1)
Think of what happened if you exchanged the military and the science budget! The USA could become a country of geniuses with a very successful economy and education in 10-20 years.
Umm, not all Scientists live in the USA, mate. ;)
(Case in point - Neither Amenacier or myself live in the U.S.)
You could probably substitute "Sports Budget" for Military Budget in your example when residing in our Country, and it would be (more or less) the equivilent.
Re: (Score:1)
Damn Slashdot. I lost the whole reply just now. I'll try to re-create it.
There isn't.
There are several problems with gene therapy,
So there is. You just contradicted yourself. :P
The problem is to "do it right". Granted, some cells are easier to target with specific virii, and some erroneous genes are easier to displace than others. But there's always an error margin in such a therapy, there always will be side-effects.
Maybe I'm more of a risk-taker, but if I'm faced with cancer... I mean, what's the worst side effect I could get from the therapy?
And when talking about modifying genes of multicellular organisms, the most common side-effect is this: cancer.
Cancer?
You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
As far as I know, the virus searches in the DNA for (a) specific marker sequence(s), and then replaces that exact part. A change in how your body works after this is the whole point of this. You have to decide, which version of that microcode you want. T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
No, I didn't: Gene therapy isn't a cure of cancer because of its technical limitations. I didn't state that the technique of gene therapy didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
>> There actually already is [a cure for cancer/prostate cancer].
> There isn't.
There is.
It just isn't an easy-to-implement cure. All you have to do is kill every cancer cell. Given the sheer number of cells to check, it's a challenge.
Surgery for reattaching limbs has been done. Intense surgery for dealing with the body on a cell-by-cell basis may be feasible too. Indeed, start with a bloodstream filter to scan for spreading cancer. Acupuncture may not have real results, but scale it down to allow d
Re: (Score:2)