Blood testing could spot cancer early, study says
May 9 (UPI) -- Blood tests could catch as many as half of cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage, a new study says.
If conducted every year or every other year, the multi-cancer early detection blood test could help more people survive cancer, researchers reported Thursday in BMJ Open.
"Both annual and biennial MCED screening intervals have the potential to avert deaths associated with late-stage cancers when used in addition to current guideline-based cancer screening," concluded a research team led by Peter Sasieni, a professor of cancer epidemiology with Queen Mary University of London.
The blood test looks for many different cancer-specific signals, including DNA fragments shed by tumors, researchers said.
Only a few screenings today can reliably detect cancer among those at high risk, including tests for breast, colon, cervical and lung cancers, researchers said.
Blood testing offers an opportunity to detect dozens of different cancer types by looking for cancer markers in people's bloodstream.
To estimate the usefulness of blood testing in regular cancer screening, researchers analyzed data from an earlier clinical trial that used the blood test to help diagnose cancer.
The analysis showed that blood testing improved early diagnosis for a wide variety of cancers.
Compared with standard cancer screening, annual blood testing was associated with 49% fewer late-stage cancer diagnoses and 21% fewer deaths within five years, results show.
Blood testing every other year resulted in 39% fewer late-stage diagnoses and 17% fewer deaths within five years, researchers added.
Among people diagnosed with an aggressive, fast-growing cancer, blood tests could avert 14% to 21% deaths within five years, results show.
"Based on the performance characteristics from a case control study, both annual and biennial screening with an MCED test have the potential to intercept 31% to 49% of cancers at stage 1-2 that would otherwise present at stage 3-4," researchers estimate.
"Of these, approximately equal numbers would be detected at stage 1 and at stage 2," they added.
These estimates assume complete compliance with screening schedules and follow-up testing, which is optimistic, researchers noted. They also assume that more early-stage diagnoses will automatically reduce death rates.
"The optimal choice of screening interval will depend on assessments of real-world cancer survival and the costs of confirmatory testing after MCED screening," researchers said.
More information
The Cleveland Clinic has more on blood tests for cancer.
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
24 minutes ago
- UPI
Here's why a hurricane has never crossed the equator
1 of 3 | The Atlantic stirs up in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Vero Beach, Fla., in October 2024. The Coriolis force is responsible for deflecting winds to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere, and that is responsible for hurricanes or tropical storms never crossing the equator. File Photo by Joe Marino/UPI | License Photo Did you know that a hurricane or tropical storm has never crossed the equator? The reason behind this fascinating phenomenon lies in a meteorological principle related to the rotation of the Earth: the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is responsible for deflecting winds to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. "This force is what gives tropical systems their iconic swirl -- counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere," AccuWeather lead hurricane expert Alex DaSilva explained. At the equator, however, the Coriolis force is essentially zero, making it impossible for a tropical system to cross over from one hemisphere to another. Typhoon Vamei in 2001 was the closest storm to the equator Most tropical systems remain north of 5 degrees north latitude or south of 5 degrees south latitude. The closest a tropical storm or hurricane has ever come to crossing the equator was Typhoon Vamei in December 2001 in the western Pacific, which got within 100 miles of the equator, forming at only 1.4 degrees North latitude. An unnamed tropical depression in 1973 formed farther south The closest a tropical depression has ever formed to the equator was an unnamed storm in December 1973. This storm formed at 0.5 latitude. It later became a tropical storm around 0.7 latitude, according to the China Meteorological Administration. The official record by the U.S. National Hurricane Center disagrees, saying it did not have tropical-storm-force winds until later in its path, north of 10 degrees north latitude. This is likely due to the different ways that the two agencies measure winds in a tropical system. Another fact you may notice on the world tropical cyclone map is that there have been no tropical storms in the southeastern Pacific west of South America and few subtropical or tropical storms off the east coast of the continent. Why are there so few tropical storms in the South Atlantic? Only one hurricane has ever formed off the coast of South America: an unnamed storm locally called Catarina in 2004. According to the NHC, only two additional unnamed tropical storms have ever roamed the southern Atlantic basin, in 2010 and 2011. The other storms shown on the map above are subtropical storms, a designation for a cyclone with high winds that is not 100 tropical in nature. Average sea-surface temperatures above the threshold for tropical storm development (26 C) between 1982 and 1995. The Peru Current brings cold water up the west coast of South America while the Brazil current brings warm water southward off South America's east coast. Adapted from (AccuWeather/NOAA WPC) The lack of activity off the west coast of South America is primarily because of colder waters, DaSilva says. The Peru Current brings cold water northward along the coast. Another factor is higher wind shear, which tears apart most tropical storms before they can strengthen. "The waters off Brazil are not as cold, because the offshore currents are from the north, but the wind shear is still too strong to support many tropical storms," DaSilva explained.
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
CPAP or Zepbound? Patients, doctors debate sleep apnea treatment
Doctors favor treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, machines, researchers are slated to report this week at a meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Adobe stock June 9 (UPI) A clash is brewing between doctors and patients when it comes to treatment for sleep apnea in those with obesity, a new study reports. Doctors favor treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, machines, researchers are slated to report this week at a meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. The machines keep airways open using mild air pressure provided through a mask patients wear while sleeping. But patients would rather treat their sleep apnea with tirzepatide (Zepbound), a GLP-1 weight-loss drug, researchers found. "The results highlight a need for real-world comparative effectiveness data of CPAP versus tirzepatide, and a potential mismatch between patient and provider preferences when managing comorbid obesity and obstructive sleep apnea," lead researcher Ahmed Khalaf said in a news release. He's a sleep technician in the pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine division at University of California-San Diego. Nearly 30 million adults in the United States have sleep apnea, a disease in which the upper airway collapses during sleep, causing people to wake repeatedly. CPAP has been considered the gold standard for treating sleep apnea, but some patients find the machines too bulky and noisy. About 50% of people prescribed CPAP either can't use it often enough to matter or find it too bothersome, according to Harvard Medical School. Common problems include mask discomfort, dry mouth, breathing that feels out of sync and noise from the machine. Late last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Zepbound as the first drug to treat people with obesity and sleep apnea. At the time, the sleep medicine society hailed the approval as "a positive development for patients and clinicians, who now have another treatment option for this sleep disorder," according to a statement from the academy. But Zepbound is only for people with obesity and sleep apnea, the society noted. Also, Zepbound can reduce the severity of sleep apnea through weight loss, but might not cure the problem. For the new study, researchers analyzed nationwide online survey data from 365 patients, and also spoke to 17 sleep medicine professionals at UCSD. Doctors favored CPAP over Zepbound 53% to 26%, while patients favored Zepbound over CPAP 48% to 35%. Both doctors and patients supported treatment that combined CPAP and Zepbound, but doctors were more enthusiastic about combination therapy, 88% versus 61%. The patients' preferences are likely driven by their own experiences -- 78% said they were either current or former users of CPAP, results show. By comparison, only 23% of patients said they'd ever used Zepbound or Ozempic (semaglutide), the other prominent GLP-1 drug. Principal investigator Dr. Chris Schmickl, an assistant professor of medicine at University of California-San Diego, expressed surprise at the level of disagreement between patients and providers. "Recognizing differing attitudes toward treatment is crucial for developing a realistic and achievable action plan," he said in a news release. "Additional research to understand the underlying reasons behind these preferences will offer valuable insights for providers to guide treatment decisions." Researchers are scheduled to present these findings Wednesday at the society meeting in Seattle. Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal. More information Harvard Medical School has more on managing CPAP problems. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
