Slashdot Mirror
Test For Prostate Cancer Gene Soon To Be Available
Tiger4 writes "CNN reports on a simple test to determine the presence of genes linked to Prostate Cancer. These five genes, if present, can increase the risk of prostate cancer up to nine times. 'More than 25,000 American men will die from prostate cancer this year. But prostate cancer can be treated successfully if the disease is caught early. A blood test that can detect whether a man is at high risk for developing prostate cancer is on the horizon. The study was published in the February 28, 2008, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.' It turns out the company actually wants to test saliva, making the test significantly easier and more convenient. Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered."
Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered.
Very relevant for the typical manboobs wearing Slashdotter. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
How silly. A simple test already exists: have any of the males in the past three generations in your family died from prostate cancer?
If the answer is "Yes", get checked regularly.
Just remember that these are not genes (or, more correctly - alleles) that determine, in an absolute manner, whether you'll get the cancer or not (unlike, say in the case of the mutant gene for Cystic Fibrosis). They are variants that, when present alone or in combination increase the risk. It's a bit like with insurance - when you're a twenty-something, living in a large city, and want to insure a sports car, you'll pay a greater premium than a middle aged small-town father insuring a minivan, because the risk that you'll have an accident is several times higher. But that doesn't mean that all urban twenty-somethings in sports car will crash (in fact, most of them won't), and it doesn't mean that the minivan driving fathers never crash. It't the same with the association of genetic variants with cancer - there is no causative relationship - there is only an increase in risk. Which means that the test can be informative (to a varying degree), but is never definitive (unless it's a simple Mendelian trait, like CF, which the common cancers are not). Read this informative post on The Evolution & Medicine Review for a sobering view on genetic association in complex traits. Also, if you follow the link to the company page you'll see (in the News section) that the main paper (in NEJM) reporting the association was a study done on the Swedish population, and it's by no means certain, that it'll hold for other population backgrounds. All this doesn't mean that it's worthless, just an advice to take it with a grain of salt.
Test For Prostate Cancer Gene Soon To Be Available on Saturday January 03, @05:13AM
That really WAS soon!
The case of the British couple who had their daughter tested for the presence of mutant breast cancer genes is not representative of all genetic testing for breast cancer genes. This case involves pre-implantation diagnosis, and if the child was carrying the mutant alleles for the breast cancer genes, the only option to avoid having a child carrying the mutations would have been to abort the foetus (or carry it to term, but knowing that it carried the mutant alleles). But this isn't the usual way of testing for mutations in those genes - I could go and be tested tomorrow, and from what I understand it would involve a blood sample (see for details on testing for the breast cancer genes). Granted, a saliva test would be easier than a blood test, but all in all they're both far easier than the pre-implantation diagnosis carried out in the referenced articles (Slashdot article and the orignal article from the BBC).
Amenacier
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
By using your brain. In quantum physics they had this exact problem. And they hated it. ;)
Maybe you remember the double-slit experiment, where light from one light source creates an interference pattern instead of the previously expected two lines. Every time the scientist tried to measure where the photons went trough, the interference went away. There was no way to measure it and retain the pattern. So they got very very smart and tricked physics with its own methods.
They used the strange effect of quantum entanglement. Before sending the photons trough the two slits, they entangled the photons with another photon. Then they sent both down a similar double-slit set-up... with one small difference. They measured the entangled photon! And because they never measured the actual photon, the interference survived!
But because two entangled particles share the same quantum state, they could measure the entangled photon and get the same data as for the actual photon.
I'm sorry, I did not read the rest of your comment after countering your base assumption. It was too long anyway. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
...if you
1) include yourself.
2) make it very obvious that this is humor.
Or is it just someone having problems with being overweight, and being angry at me for it instead of at himself. ;)
Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, you know...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
There isn't.
There are several problems with gene therapy, or, in your example, somatic gene therapy, as we call this technique. To summarize them: The problem is to "do it right". Granted, some cells are easier to target with specific virii, and some erroneous genes are easier to displace than others. But there's always an error margin in such a therapy, there always will be side-effects. And when talking about modifying genes of multicellular organisms, the most common side-effect is this: cancer. You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
Gene therapy is not ready yet for prime time, the benefits don't outweigh the faults we introduce (some extreme cases of genetic disorders are possible exceptions).
Well, that's why some disease genes (like the one responsible for sickle-cell anemia) do exist at all: They provide for some positive side-effects.
If medically indicated, I'd have not much problems with that. But ...
The negative aspects far outweigh the benefits if you just change your genes for the sake of it.
And, remember: Gene therapy sounds great in the media because scientists need funding.
Disclosure:
IAAMB (molecular biologist)
Insightful post! Scientists should be able to get funding without all the media hype over techniques that aren't yet ready for implementation.
Amenacier
Carrying the mutant genes in question (such as the ones that give a predisposition to breast cancer or prostate cancer) is not a sure sign that you will actually contract that cancer. Virii are part of a biological system, and as such are not immune from natural forces such as mutation rates - while DNA replication and other cellular mechanisms are designed to maintain the integrity of the genetic information, the processes are not perfect. So is it worth taking a risk to fix an allele that predisposes you to cancer with a treatment that may induce cancer itself?
Amenacier
Hi I'm doing a study of why sometimes otherwise smart people believe silly things. Plz contact me - you seem like the perfect example.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
You may be "devastated" to find out that 70% percent of 70 year old (men) have prostate cancer. 90 year old men nearly *all* have prostate cancer. Talking about genes which make it 90 times more probable to develop cancer doesn't make sense. Maybe it is about early prostate cancer? Or did almost all of us get this gift from god?
And masturbate a lot. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm
I am far more keen on the traditional digital examination thanks.
No, I didn't: Gene therapy isn't a cure of cancer because of its technical limitations. I didn't state that the technique of gene therapy didn't exist.
It all depends on the type of cancer (or other disease) you have. There may be cases where the benefits of gene therapy outweigh the risks, but these cases are rare. In your original posting you stated gene therapy was already an existing cure, which is false, and suggested it would be usable for fun stuff, which I consider a dangerous approach.
No; in fact, most viral vectors used insert their payload randomly, that is, the defective gene doesn't be replaced. They just introduce an additional, functional allele into the cells.
Furthermore, the sequence the virus inserts is not clean, but has flanking and regulative regions which are necessary for insertion and for expression of the gene. Therefore, it's not like editing a comment with a text editor. And finally, some of the virii will mutate and will thereby either transfect other cell types or they will insert a mutated gene or mutated regulatory sequences.
This is not how gene therapy works. Most side effects are attributable to randomness of the process.
Well, that hasn't anything to do with transcription. ;) Anyway, there are lots of things that can go wrong.
That would not be a useful virus, indeed. But cancer usually doesn't develop because many cells harbor the same mutation independently of each other, but a single cell collects so many mutations until it finally becomes a cancer cell; and the resulting cancer is of clonal origin of this single cell. The number of cells that get infected by the virii just increase the probability that one single cell will become a cancer cell.
You wording was like you meant gene therapy worked already today, but I now see you're not that misinformed. ;)
Possibly. ;)
Gee... I wonder how health and life insurance companies will react to a test that will make people they insure - appear to be about to be dieing from cancer?
At least on paper and where their insurance premiums and insurance contracts are concerned.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
> In the long run, I'm all for genetic freedom. Change your genetics how you like. You buy specific virii-"mods" that only "infect" you, and then something in your body changes. You could change your hair color, add some starfish-genes to regrow body parts, or why not grow some decorative fairy wings if you are a girl? > Some might really fear everything that could go wrong there. But hey, you only live once, and the gains far outweigh the negative aspects. The problem with the whole 'genetics' thingy is that it tends to affect your offspring. I don't mind people tweaking their own bodies but I would object to changing the genetics of ones children unless it were to prevent some terrible genetic disease (Which diseases qualify as 'a terrible genetic disease' I'll leave to an exercise for the reader ;) ).
One thing to keep in mind... I think any type of genetic testing or screening should be done anonymously. If you test positively for being at risk for any disease, and that information is entered into a computer, there is a risk that information can be used against you later. Insurance companies and employers would love nothing more than to discriminate against people who have POTENTIAL problems. Even worse, a genetic fingerprint can make its way into some security database without your knowledge or consent, making you a possible suspect in any crime where you might have been casually present. Once collected, you can't "undo" such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattica comes to mind
The only truly private information is information not collected, or collected anonymously. Such tests should be for YOUR benefit, not the benefit of others.
It may of course very well be that they have developed an even better indicator of the risk you have of getting prostate cancer... but the article made it sound like this was a completely new thing.
You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
This is an issue for every man over 65 or so. Its an issue for a some men between 50 and 65, and for very few under 50. But if you have a father, its going to be an issue for him.
The problem is that you can diagnose the condition fairly well. You can do PSA tests, particularly free PSA, and you can take biopsies. The thing you can't do is predict very well from these tests how vigorous the cancer is. Now, this might not matter if the treatments were fairly benign, and if they were highly sucessful. But they are not. The side effects of all physical treatments, including radiation, are considerable and very unpleasant in a majority of cases.
They are better than dying of course - death from metastized prostate cancer is very painful and unpleasant. But the problem is, if your cancer is discovered by routine PSA screeing, you don't then know whether what has been discovered is a cancer that you will live with until 90 without noticing, or if its one which if not treated will kill you in a few years. Almost all men die with prostate cancer. Few die of it.
This gives rise to the problem about screening. It could be that the effects of screening will simply be to treat more people who would be better off untreated. So the discovery of a genetic marker is potentially a great step forward. If it can pick people to screen who are really at risk of a galloping form, it will lead to more treatment of those who would benefit, and less of those who don't really need it.
For what it is worth, I had to research this question for someone a few years ago. I came to the conclusion that surgery and radiation and cryo are all dubious in terms of efficacy and very poor in terms of side effects - impotence, incontinence, in the case of radiation, collateral damage to other tissue. My own conclusion was that conformal radiation is the best of the physical measures, but probably the best overall is intermittent hormone ablation.
The cancer grows in the presence of testosterone. If this is blocked, either by the administration of testosterone blocking hormones, or by physical castration, the cancer will cease to grow and will shrink. PSA will fall. Unfortunately after a while, the cancer becomes hormone refractory - it learns to grow in the absence of hormone. This is why hormonal treatments are only temporary. However, if you then turn on testosterone again, the hormone supposedly will be unable to handle it, and will shrink again.
This is what I would do if afflicted. But I know of no studies showing this works, and I've never met anyone who has undergone it. Apparently what you do is total hormone blockade with drugs for about a year or 15 months, then stop and let testosterone production resume. As soon as PSA rises again, go back on the drugs. Its probably very risky. But the alternatives are not very appetizing either.
This is not like appendicitis. Its one of those things where no alternative is good, and what to do depends on your judgment of risks and rewards. Very tough. My friend by the way had a biopsy. He was free of cancer. But the act of taking the biopsy under general anaesthetic was not risk free, and produced a total urinary blockage. He was then permanently catheterized, which gradually took a toll on him because of repeated infections, and he ended up dying with MRSA of a failing heart. Whether to find out for sure if you have it is not a simple decision.
The "old" test was much more enjoyable -- especially since my doctor is female!
Does it still involve me taking my pants off and hearing the words "trust me I'm a doctor"?
Help fight spam
This touches on a significant male rights issue that the press refuse to report on. Male cancers lag far behind the cancers that are specific to women in terms of awareness and research. Few people even know that prostate cancer is actually more common than breast cancer. More men than women die of cancer each year.
Despite this, feminists would probably argue that they are campaigning in order to raise awareness of female cancers. A woman might mention to her colleagues that she is going to have a lump in her breast examined. Most men would find it difficult to raise the subject of a lump in their testicles when chatting with their closest friend.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
How to falsify evolution? Huh? Alabama done proved evolution wrong every day since God created it 4000 years ago!
(I tease you because I love you, Alabama.)
I take it, then, you've never had a prostate examination. Lucky you. Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles. That would suggest testicular cancer, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles.
I didn't say that it did. I was talking about cancers specific to males. They need at least an equal amount of awareness raising and destigmatization, if not more.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
Taking cystic canser, as an example: Fibrous lines joining and or forming additional cysts. Lines and cysts spreading toxins into the body.
A road map; diagram of civilization: Lanes; Roads; Highways, joining: Villages; Towns; Cities, all of which produce mountains of Techinlogical toxic waste!
Ci-vil-ize-ation: The canser, killing Planet Earth! As it does the human body! All of it caused by Human Error!
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to ERR, and destroy the way of thy paths.
>> There actually already is [a cure for cancer/prostate cancer].
> There isn't.
There is.
It just isn't an easy-to-implement cure. All you have to do is kill every cancer cell. Given the sheer number of cells to check, it's a challenge.
Surgery for reattaching limbs has been done. Intense surgery for dealing with the body on a cell-by-cell basis may be feasible too. Indeed, start with a bloodstream filter to scan for spreading cancer. Acupuncture may not have real results, but scale it down to allow deep and extractable probing into the body and it could be a solution to cancer.
A problem is cost - if a person earns a paltry 2 or 3 million over a lifetime, but it costs at least a million in labor and time on special machines to deal with every cell in the body, how can a cure be afforded?
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.