Just a point of clarification on the PATHFINDER study and the GRAIL technology. To be clear to patients, the probability of having cancer simply by entering the study was 1.9%. When the test is negative, that reduces the probability to 1.4%. If I was a patient in the study ( I am over 50 with no symptoms so could be) this wouldn't really reassure me at all.
If I have a positive test my chances of having cancer rise from 1.9% to 38%. Personally, I would be happy with that but on a population level, a large number of people will be told 'their cancer test is positive' causing anxiety and extra tests, even though there is no cancer.
I don't see a role for the GRAIL test in cancer screening and would certainly not invest in the company. They see this as a 'game changer' in cancer screening but it certainly is not that. It may prove to have a role in patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer and studies are ongoing in that field.
Thanks Mara- an educational read as ever.
Just a point of clarification on the PATHFINDER study and the GRAIL technology. To be clear to patients, the probability of having cancer simply by entering the study was 1.9%. When the test is negative, that reduces the probability to 1.4%. If I was a patient in the study ( I am over 50 with no symptoms so could be) this wouldn't really reassure me at all.
If I have a positive test my chances of having cancer rise from 1.9% to 38%. Personally, I would be happy with that but on a population level, a large number of people will be told 'their cancer test is positive' causing anxiety and extra tests, even though there is no cancer.
I don't see a role for the GRAIL test in cancer screening and would certainly not invest in the company. They see this as a 'game changer' in cancer screening but it certainly is not that. It may prove to have a role in patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer and studies are ongoing in that field.