Clinical study finds 9 in 10 bladder cancers with urine test - University of Birmingham
www.birmingham.ac.uk
Patients across seven NHS sites had bladder cancer detected using Nonacus Ltd developed GALEAS Bladder test
  • historicaldocuments@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    2 days ago

    Need money to live, so get a job. Need to pee in cup to get job. Company pays for the test so they get the results. Company offsets cost of test by selling data to test labs. Test labs find cancer markers and make note in database. Insurance company buys database. Insurance company marks pre-existing condition found in test and raises insurance costs. Still not informed of test results. Life insurance companies buy database. Premiums raised to point of being infeasible. Still not informed of test results. A few years pass. Get sick. Eventually get doctors appointment. Bladder cancer detected, stage 4. Die.

    What’s the problem here? You’re right, it’s how there’s an opportunity not being captured. Our company will keep and maintain the database, and instead of losing money by insuring sick people, your company for a nominal fee can have constant access to the data so any underpayment issues can be avoided before they start.

    That’s my elevator pitch to a VC firm. The first paragraph is a storyboard for an ad we’re going to shoot. The other higher-up at the company is going to see if his girlfriend will be the person in the story.

    • undrwater@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      I lost my bladder to bladder cancer. The way the symptoms and diagnosis went, this test would not have improved my outcome.

      I’m pretty sure it will be beneficial for others, though I’m not clear if it will be a part of standard urinalysis. If not, other symptoms will have to prompt this test.

      Reading through more clearly; this would help to determine how critical it is to have a camera up the pisser (cystoscopy).

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        Perhaps a urine test, being less invasive than a biopsy, will be less hesitantly prescribed and thus more likely to catch cancer early when it’s easier to treat?

        • undrwater@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Same thought I had, but it seems for now it’s not going to be a part of a standard urinalysis.

          Instead, if there are other symptoms that indicate potential for cancer, this would be used prior to cystoscopy to determine the urgency for a cystoscopy.

          I assume using this as part of a standard urinalysis might be cost prohibitive.

          Awesome news anyway!

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      77. They detected 71, or 92.2% accuracy. For some reason, media are deathly afraid of using percentages, and always have to convert it to “1 in 6” or whatever.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      10·
      2 days ago

      I work in genetic research on rare variants of leukemia. Cancer types are identified by their genetic variants and the phenotypes of the cancer cells. Some people can have multiple types of the same cancer because of that.

      As for “9 in 10”, it probably has a >90% detection rate

      • h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Interesting, the phrasing did seem to imply there would be a greater number than 20, but I appreciate the confirmation (and bonus knowledge)

  • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    This is one of those statistics where wasting time with more research is actively killing people. But, of course, we’ll continue to do so for the next decade while we really really know for sure that a passive test doesn’t somehow harm the population.

    Meanwhile, wonder drugs that actually do kill people are just pushed on through while the evidence gets buried.