Category — Science

I want to buy Papers. It organizes PDFs of scientific articles for easy access, search, and reading. Right now, I have random print copies in a file cabinet and some electronic copies in various folders. This application makes it much easier to organize and store my papers.

Read more about it from NY Times.

The mortality rate for cancer has fallen for 20+ years, but that is mostly due to earlier detection methods and not so much due to any new therapies or treatments. Despite the large amounts of money that goes into cancer research for several decades, nothing revolutionary has been found. In a new Wired Magazine article (not yet published on the web), the issue of early detection methods vs. finding a cure is discussed. 

From my own research on “cancer” and what I know from the field, it is true that people are more excited to find therapies, treatment and cures for cancer. Even myself, I had the preconceived notion that early detection methods are not the real solutions to the problem. They are merely the means to an end.

However, the Wired article emphasized the fact that if detected early, 90% of people survive cancer as opposed to 10% for late stage detection. Why, then, is cancer research focused on finding cures for the 10% rather than saving the lives of the 90%? To save more lives, should research be focused on early detection methods rather than cures?

This is all easier said than done because an effective early detection method require robustness and specificity that would be difficult to optimize. Below are a couple obstacles mentioned in the articles.

1. The method must be able to detect malignant cancers.
MRI, CT, PET and other imaging modalities can detect abnormal tissue growth. However, not all abnormal tissue growth are malignant cancers. They could be benign and be taken care of by the body’s immune system. How to differentiate between these two tissue types? If all abnormal growths are treated, then some people are undergoing unnecessary procedures. Then again, is it better to treat all and save some than not saving any?

2. The method must be able to detect cancer when it is still small.
If blood or serum is used to detect for proteins that might be present when there is cancer, then it must be detected when the cancer is still small and has not metastasize. The problem is that at the earlier stages, the tumor might not generate enough proteins that can be detected via a blood or serum test. One simulated study has found that it is possible for a small tumor to generate enough proteins to be detected in a blood/serum test.

What do you think? What other obstacles are there in early detection? Should more money goes into early detection methods rather than to a cure for cancer?