I disagree, QD - "The latest news is new and IMO exciting. It shows (quantitatively) that RECAF can be combined with other markers to give a more specific test for some early stage cancers. What's not to like? The announcement directly addresses the endless criticisms about false positives. It takes RECAF a step closer to being used for screening."
You are extrapolating from this controlled study that it can be just as useful in the real world. I disagree. RECAF will not provide any specific information, other than that some type of cancer likely exists. That paired with a "confused" CA-125 result will not tell you that early stage ovarian cancer exists. It may tell you that some type of cancer exists. Wasn't this same news reported years ago related to prostate cancer?
A different scenario where a doctor discovers an ovarian mass might be a better use of RECAF to see if the patient has cancer. If RECAF is positive then it might be more reasonably assumed that the ovarian mass is cancerous. But this obviously would not be early stage screening.
Quan, I like the way you stated this. People have asked this question many times and the correct answer is current tests on the market are terrible. So why not replace them with a better test?
Quans post answers this pretty nicely:
"But I do know that the barrier to entry into clinical practice is extremely high for any new device / product. I think a lot of people under-estimate how costly and difficult this is, and why it is largely the domain of huge multinational companies.
if the product holds up to clinical scrutiny, I think the dam will bust at some point and it will take off."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
