ctDNA liquid biopsies detect specific genetic variations associated with a lung tumor
Lung cancer affects millions of people worldwide
Personalized treatment plans are tailored to each patient's unique needs
These treatments often have fewer side effects than traditional chemotherapy
Lung cancer is a deadly disease that affects millions of people worldwide. In recent years, there has been significant progress in the development of new blood tests to detect lung cancer at an early stage and provide targeted treatments for patients. One such test, called ctDNA liquid biopsies, looks for tiny fragments of tumor DNA circulating in the bloodstream and can quickly detect specific genetic variations associated with a lung tumor. This allows doctors to make more accurate diagnoses and offer personalized treatment plans that are tailored to each patient's unique needs. In addition, these treatments often have fewer side effects than traditional chemotherapy, making them more appealing for patients who may not be able to tolerate the harsh side effects of standard cancer treatments.
Thousands of Brits with suspected lung cancer will be offered a new blood test to detect the killer disease quicker as part of an NHS trial.
Health chiefs hope the exciting scheme will help patients get targeted treatments quicker boosting their survival rates.
The cutting-edge liquid biopsy looks for tiny fragments of tumour DNA circulating in blood.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the new blood test has the potential to transform cancer care for patients when there is no evidence of this in the text. Secondly, it quotes Professor Sanjay Popat saying that ctDNA liquid biopsies have the potential to transform cancer care for patients but does not provide any context or explanation as to why they would be better than current methods. Thirdly, it states that lung cancer patient Kat Robinson was able to take tablets at home rather get treatment in hospital which is misleading because she still received medical attention and had her condition monitored by healthcare professionals.
The article claims that lung cancer patient Kat Robinson was able to take tablets at home rather get treatment in hospital which is misleading because she still received medical attention and had her condition monitored by healthcare professionals.
The article claims that the new blood test has the potential to transform cancer care for patients but there is no evidence of this in the text.
Professor Sanjay Popat states that ctDNA liquid biopsies have the potential to transform cancer care for patients but does not provide any context or explanation as to why they would be better than current methods.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of lung cancer as they are reporting on a new blood test that could diagnose patients with this disease. The article mentions the Royal Marsden Hospital and ctDNA liquid biopsies which may be products or services offered by companies affiliated with Emily Stearn.
ctDNA liquid biopsies are mentioned as a possible alternative to traditional lung cancer screening methods. Emily Stearn may have financial ties or professional affiliations with companies that offer these products.
The article mentions the Royal Marsden Hospital as one of the institutions involved in testing this new blood test.
The article reports on a new blood test for lung cancer, stating 'the NHS is trialling cutting-edge technology that could diagnose patients in just 15 minutes'.
Angle PLC is showcasing its Parsortix system and assays at the 14th European Breast Cancer Conference
The study results highlight the importance of using ANGLE's Parsortix system combined with its Portrait CTC Staining Kit for analyzing a range of CTC phenotypes and clusters
Accuracy
Thousands of Brits with suspected lung cancer will be offered a new blood test to detect the killer disease quicker as part of an NHS trial.
Health chiefs hope the exciting scheme will help patients get targeted treatments quicker boosting their survival rates.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article mentions that ANGLE plc will be showcasing its Parsortix system and assays at a leading European breast cancer conference. However, there are no references to any other company or organization hosting this event. Secondly, the body of the article states that EBCC is focused on multidisciplinary research with an emphasis on innovation and technology in managing breast cancer. This implies that EBCC is a scientific conference for researchers and physicians only, but it also mentions patient advocates and industry representatives attending to provide sales, partnerships, or collaborations opportunities. Thirdly, the article presents two posters at the conference: one highlighting the utility of ANGLE's Parsortix system in detecting mesenchymal CTCs and another showcasing an IF assay for HER2 protein identification on CTCs isolated using ANGLE's Parsortix system. However, there is no mention of any other company or organization presenting posters at the conference. These deceptive practices make it seem like ANGLE plc has a significant presence and influence in the breast cancer research community when they may not have as much impact as claimed.
The article mentions that EBCC is focused on multidisciplinary, high-quality clinical and translational research with an emphasis on innovation and technology in managing breast cancer. However, it also states that the conference is attended by patient advocates and industry representatives providing sales, partnerships or collaborations opportunities.
The article mentions that ANGLE plc will be showcasing its Parsortix system at a leading European breast cancer conference. However, there are no references to any other company or organization hosting this event.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains two fallacies: Appeal to Authority and Inflammatory Rhetoric. The author claims that the Parsortix system is a standardized solution for harvesting CTCs, but this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory language when describing mesenchymal CTCs as clinically significant and having increased metastatic potential compared to single CTCs.
The Parsortix system provides an optimised solution for harvesting a diverse range of CTC phenotypes, but this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards ANGLE plc and their products. The author only mentions the company's Parsortix system and Portrait assays in a positive light without providing any context or comparison with other CTC solutions. Additionally, the language used to describe the results of the studies is overly optimistic and exaggerated.
ANGLE's Parsortix® system and Portrait®ƶ CTC Staining Kit together provide an optimised, efficient, and standardised solution for the harvest and characterisation of a diverse range of CTC phenotypes.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article mentions Angle PLC and their Parsortix system which they are promoting at the European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC). Additionally, it is mentioned that Guilford in Surrey will be hosting EBCC 2024. It also mentions ACCESSWIRE as a source of information.
Additionally, it is mentioned that Guilford in Surrey will be hosting EBCC 2024. It also mentions ACCESSWIRE as a source of information.
The article mentions Angle PLC and their Parsortix system which they are promoting at the European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC).
The test looks for tiny samples of tumour DNA circulating in the bloodstream and will be offered to 10,000 patients with suspected lung cancer over the next year.
✼❏
It can quickly detect the specific genetic variations of a lung tumor,
uhuh.
These treatments can often be taken as daily tablets and have fewer side effects, sparing patients the ordeal of standard chemotherapy.
Accuracy
Thousands of Brits with suspected lung cancer will be offered a new blood test to detect the killer disease quicker as part of an NHS trial.
The Parsortix system provides an optimized, efficient, and standardized solution for harvesting CTCs from a diverse range of phenotypes
Some tumours can be treated with pills rather than standard chemotherapy, often meaning fewer side effects.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that this blood test will allow women to continue being mothers while undergoing cancer treatment. However, there is no mention of any specific treatments for pregnant women with cancer in the body of the article. Secondly, the author claims that these tests could be rolled out to other types of cancers including breast cancer which experts say will transform NHS care. There is no evidence provided to support this claim and it seems unlikely given current research on blood testing for cancer detection.
The title implies that this blood test will allow women to continue being mothers while undergoing cancer treatment.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the blood test is being widely used and will be offered to thousands of patients. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the ordeal of standard chemotherapy as sparing patients from it.
> A simple blood test is being widely used to help diagnose cancer on the NHS for the first time, with thousands of lung cancer patients to benefit. <
> If the pilot is successful, the blood tests could be rolled out to other types of cancer, including breast cancer, which experts say will transform NHS care. <
Thousands of patients in England with suspected lung cancer are being offered a blood test which can show if they can get early access to targeted therapies.
Some tumours can be treated with pills rather than standard chemotherapy, often meaning fewer side effects.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article suggests that a blood test can reveal best lung cancer treatment when it only reveals if patients are eligible for targeted therapies which may not be effective or suitable for all patients. Secondly, the author claims that some tumors can be treated with pills rather than standard chemotherapy but fails to mention other treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy which may also be effective in treating lung cancer. Thirdly, the article uses a misleading phrase 'best treatment' when it is not clear what criteria were used to determine this. Fourthly, the author claims that Kat Robinson was able to take tablets at home rather than get treatment in hospital but fails to mention other patients who may not have had access to such treatments due to financial or logistical constraints.
Kat Robinson was able to take tablets at home rather than get treatment in hospital but fails to mention other patients who may not have had access to such treatments due to financial or logistical constraints.
The author claims that some tumors can be treated with pills rather than standard chemotherapy but fails to mention other treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy which may also be effective in treating lung cancer.
The title of the article suggests a blood test can reveal best lung cancer treatment when it only reveals if patients are eligible for targeted therapies which may not be effective or suitable for all patients.
The article uses a misleading phrase 'best treatment' when it is not clear what criteria were used to determine this.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the NHS has negotiated a confidential discount with the manufacturer Takeda for brigatinib, without providing any evidence or context about this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma when they state that patients have faster access to treatment if they take tablets at home instead of getting treated in hospital. This statement is not supported by any data or research and could be misleading to readers. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when it states that the cancer had spread to Kat's lymph nodes and her skull, which may create a sense of urgency for readers without providing necessary context about the severity of these findings.
The NHS has negotiated a confidential discount with Takeda for brigatinib.
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased towards the use of blood tests for lung cancer treatment. The author presents Kat Robinson's story as a success case and highlights how she was able to take tablets at home instead of getting treatment in hospital. This creates an impression that the blood test is always beneficial, which may not be entirely accurate.
Prof Sanjay Popat says brigatinib is one of eight targeted treatments for non-small cell lung cancer, which accounts for at least 80% of lung cancer cases. All these drugs are tablets which can be taken at home by patients. This creates an impression that the blood test is always beneficial and preferable over other forms of treatment.
The article mentions Kat Robinson's symptoms began with a headache, but further investigation found that her primary cancer was in her lung, where she has three tumours. The author does not mention any other possible causes for these symptoms or alternative treatments. This creates an impression that the blood test is always beneficial and preferable over other forms of treatment.
The article mentions that 2000 patients had already been offered the blood test when they presented with cancer symptoms and were able to take tablets at home instead of getting treatment in hospital. This creates an impression that the blood test is always beneficial, which may not be entirely accurate.
