Imagine, getting a simple, noninvasive blood test instead of a surgical procedure to test for advanced lung cancer mutations. Then, imagine the liquid biopsy being the more efficient and reliable option of the two.
Research is even showing that liquid biopsies are capturing clinically relevant mutations not found in tissue biopsies.
What do you think of this new biopsy option? Do you think it will improve the quality of life for lung cancer patients?
Full article: genengnews.com/gen-news-hig...
Absolutely, but it would be even better if a liquid biopsy could be done as part of a yearly check up to diagnose cancer in it's early stages. This would also lead to personalized treatments and would be much less costly compared to late stage treatments and CT scans.
This liquid biopsy is on my oncologist's list of future "to do" items if and when my stage iv tumors grow but if your cancer burden is not big enough, the biopsy will read negative if there isn't e ouch cancer byproduct in te urine. A terrific tool but not a true replacement for more invasive tissue testing. He believes I could be one of many whose initial testing produces a negative results for certain genetic markers that can be later discovered through this test.
What do lung cancer patients want from our medical teams?
What a difference between a bone biopsy and a lung biopsy.
CBD FOR LUNG CANCER?
