> I think you’re thinking about circulating tumor cells
No, I'm very clear on ctDNA, cell-free DNA, whatever you want to call it.
My point stands: early detection goes back to in situ lesions.
The first problem is finding in situ lesions, which is hard.
The second problem is the amount of fear-induced care this generates. These tests are screening tests, so the vendors will lower their operating points to get their false-negative rates down, which will drive up fear, which will drive up follow-on testing, which will drive up follow-on treatment. How much is what matters.
US healthcare costs are already astronomical to the point of becoming a national security problem. And you want to spend more?
No, I'm very clear on ctDNA, cell-free DNA, whatever you want to call it.
My point stands: early detection goes back to in situ lesions.
The first problem is finding in situ lesions, which is hard.
The second problem is the amount of fear-induced care this generates. These tests are screening tests, so the vendors will lower their operating points to get their false-negative rates down, which will drive up fear, which will drive up follow-on testing, which will drive up follow-on treatment. How much is what matters.
US healthcare costs are already astronomical to the point of becoming a national security problem. And you want to spend more?