How useful are cancer gene tests?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

The cancer genetics startup Color Genomics is announcing that it will expand its test for breast and ovarian cancer genes to include a total of 30, including genes related to pancreatic, stomach, colon, and prostate cancer.

Color stands out among the field because of its price: $249. That’s cheap enough to leapfrog insurance companies, the traditional gatekeepers of genetic tests. Insurance typically only covers genetic tests for cancer—which can run to over a thousand dollars among Color’s competitors—if a patient has risk factors like family history of cancer at a young age. Color also helpfully refers would-be customers to doctors to order the test. “Historically the test has been very expensive, and the process to get testing meant jumping through lots of loops,” says president and cofounder Othman Laraki. “We want for access to no longer be a barrier.”

It’s easy to nod along: More access, more genes, more tests all sound like much-needed defenses in the interminable war against cancer. But doctors caution that our ability to sequence DNA—to build machines that can manipulate DNA samples at scale and write code that can assemble gene sequences—has far outpaced our ability to understand how those genes cause cancer. Most of the 30 genes on Color’s panel or the 25 genes on Myriad’s panel or 32 genes on GeneDx’s panel? They don’t matter enough to be useful.

Read full, original post: A single $249 test analyzes 30 cancer genes. But do you need it?

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

As Europe sees record coronavirus cases and deaths, Slovakia is testing its entire adult population. WSJ's Drew Hinshaw explains how ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend