Experimental Spit Test Could Identify Men Most At Risk of Prostate Cancer (gizmodo.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: A test developed by scientists in the U.K. and U.S. might someday be able to pinpoint the men most likely to get prostate cancer. A new study published Monday in Nature Genetics suggests the test can detect the one percent of men who are genetically most vulnerable to developing prostate cancer, a leading cause of cancer deaths among American men. The international research team used a new DNA analysis technique to peer into the genes of more than 70,000 people enrolled in previous studies. Some 45,000 of the subjects had already developed prostate cancer, while 25,000 hadn't. So the researchers compared the two groups, singling out any inherited genetic variations that might have contributed to their cancer risk. According to the authors, they managed to find 63 new variants never before associated with prostate cancer.
These results were then integrated with nearly a hundred genetic variants linked to prostate cancer previously found among 60,000 people to create a total genetic risk score. And finally, the researchers devised a test that uses a person's saliva to detect these more than 150 variants. In the U.S., people over the age of 50 are generally screened for prostate cancer via the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Those with a certain high level of PSA should be screened annually, while everyone else is advised to be screened every two years. But the saliva test could reveal especially high-risk people who need annual screening regardless of their PSA level, while ruling out low-risk people who don't need annual screening based on their genetic risk and PSA scores. Those people would only need screenings every two, five, and maybe even 10 years.
These results were then integrated with nearly a hundred genetic variants linked to prostate cancer previously found among 60,000 people to create a total genetic risk score. And finally, the researchers devised a test that uses a person's saliva to detect these more than 150 variants. In the U.S., people over the age of 50 are generally screened for prostate cancer via the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Those with a certain high level of PSA should be screened annually, while everyone else is advised to be screened every two years. But the saliva test could reveal especially high-risk people who need annual screening regardless of their PSA level, while ruling out low-risk people who don't need annual screening based on their genetic risk and PSA scores. Those people would only need screenings every two, five, and maybe even 10 years.
Re: (Score:1)
90% of men who reach the age of 80 years have an enlarged prostate. It causes many problems.
There is some evidence that consumption of soy (and possibly other sources of isoflavones) reduces that risk. And, contrary to stupid-but-popular-belief, it does not feminize men at all to eat soy.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your Ds, if you're a middle aged or older man. About 1000% RDA. It's toxic at extreem doses...reading amature docter magazine is no substitute for medical school + residency...don't listen to me...doctor, doctor, doctor.
At this point it's been studied. Prostate cancer is unique, slow enough growing that normal treatment is 'watchful care' or some such weasel words for 'do nothing'.
So they can do ethical studies with Vitamin D. Short version, it appears to work very well. 1000% RDA is the estimated
Re: This is an option, I guess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No no no. Most men get an enlarged prostate. Not prostate cancer. If we diagnose prostate cancer as cancer we have to deal with the patient wanting to get it treated. Since they're typically old and on medicare, they're not profitable.
Just let it slowly grow and hope they die of something else or have enough money to be profitable patients once they realize it's killing them and they need to get it treated. Then we can call it cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
And, contrary to stupid-but-popular-belief, it does not feminize men at all to eat soy.
It absolutely does. There's a reason parents with newborn boys are told to avoid soy and lavender and all the other estrogen-like compounds swirling around us from plastics, pollutants, the birth control pill tainting our food and water supplies, etc.
Re:This is an option, I guess (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not going to read TFA, but I'm pretty sure that's what this new test is, except they spit on their finger first.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, someone could just poke a finger up your butt. Either way works.
My doctor seems over eager to stick his finger in my bum. Two years ago he said "OK, I need you to bend over the bed"- when I looked at him funny he said "Oh, you're not 40 yet- you don't need the prostate test yet." This year in a cheerful tone he told me, "and next year you get a prostate exam".
I'm not opposed to correct medical procedures taking place. I am a bit disturbed at how enthusiastic my doctor appears to be.
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're being facetious but the attitude you're posting about, is becoming sadly common, including on this website.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not let the trolls distract from how important this story is. Prostate cancer is one of the biggest causes of death for men, and like most cancer it's much easier to treat if caught early. Encouraging guys to self-check regularly is really important, but this test should be able to detect it even earlier.
Fortunately if caught early there are effective treatments. Check yourself once a month and don't hesitate to see your doctor if you find something.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately if caught early there are effective treatments.
Care to back up that claim, especially the word "effective"?
Meh. So what else is new. (Score:2)
A simple spit test can determine your HLA markers and all sorts of stuff. The fact that you can also test for genetic vulnerabilities is pretty mundane. The consumer genetic testing services already do a great deal of this including much more obscure stuff.
This isn't news. This is the dull side of a butter knife.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in luck.
http://web.mit.edu/zoz/Public/... [mit.edu]
Re:Screening (Score:3)
We are at the threshold of diagnostic technologies that are less invasive, and early treatments that are not well recieved by all urologists.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the consensus was that screening for prostate cancer was not recommended for ANYONE because detection and treatment rarely leads to overall better outcomes.
This is not true! Many a golf club membership and Lexus have been financed by detecting prostate cancer. Do you want to deprive the poor doctors and pharmaceutical investors from their honest source of income?
more importantly: (Score:2)
If you live long enough (Score:2)
You're going to get it. So what good is a test if it can't tell you if you're going to get it early on?
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to get it. So what good is a test if it can't tell you if you're going to get it early on?
It's good for those selling expensive MRI tests or $60,000/year cancer medication that makes minimal difference in longevity but often a severely degraded life quality. Incidentally, the same that fund studies like these...
Re: (Score:2)
'People' (Score:3)
'people over the age of 50 are generally screened for prostate cancer'
Are we so PC that we can't specify the gender that actually has prostate glands, but have to be inclusive and all, and avoid excluding those genders that do not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, it's not a prostate gland. Prostate-like? And the incidence or carcinoma is truly small.
No, it's really not.
Overhyped math! What about the other 99%? (Score:2)
OP says " one percent of men ..., a leading cause of cancer deaths"
So the 1% is a "leading" cause?! What about the 99%?
Nice but useless (Score:2)
That specific cancer has mostly 2 variants, the one that kills you quickly, no matter how many dangerous operations you do and one that won't be a problem, since it grows so slowly that you can ignore it, because you'll be dead from old age before it can possibly kill you.
But nonetheless, the medical industry wants to radiate, operate and make you piss your pants the rest of your life.