Replies to post #109643 on Biotech Values

[jbog]

Men with long index fingers are at lower risk of prostate cancer, a study found.

Scientists in the U.K. who compared the hands of 1,500 prostate cancer patients and 3,000 healthy men found that those whose index was longer than their ring finger were 33 percent less likely to develop the potentially fatal disease.

“Relative finger length could be used as a simple test for prostate cancer risk,” said Ros Eeles, one of the study’s lead authors and a researcher who investigates links between genetic makeup and tumors at London’s Institute of Cancer Research, in a statement. The study was published in the British Journal of Cancer today.

Finger length is set before birth, influenced by the level of sex hormones babies are exposed to in the womb, researchers from the ICR and the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, said in the statement. A longer index finger points to less testosterone, which may protect against cancer later in life, they said.

“Our study indicates it is the hormone levels that babies are exposed to in the womb that can have an effect decades later,” Ken Muir of the University of Warwick, the study’s other lead author, said in the statement. “As our research continues, we will be able to look at a further range of factors that may be involved in the makeup of the disease.”

Scientists from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the U.S. National Institute of Aging in 2004 found that men with high blood levels of testosterone were at increased risk of prostate cancer.

[Biowatch]

Re: disease Biomarkers: Thank you for your answer.

Are there databases listing relatively noninvasive blood tests that can identify and track a disease?

I doubt there is ONE uniform disease biomarker for each disease you listed. It's much more complicated than that. The best you can hope for is to find certain biomarker that is related to the targeted treatment, which in turn to predict whether the patient will likely respond to the targeted treatment or not.

I don't expect a "magic bullet" disease marker. Yet, what do we know about biomarkers for specific diseases which could act as red flags signaling it's there or about to flare up? How can you catch something before it's too late?

Simple example, diabetics routinely get needle sticks to check blood sugar levels.

Many things aren't so easy, but many things have been looked at. Some of them involve getting a sample of a tumor or some other part of your body, which is often invasive, cumbersome, expensive, and slow.

Yet there are other markers people have tried to use, such as PSA (or it's rate of change) for prostate cancer or CA-125 for other problems.

How much research has been done as to what works, how well it works, what are the pros and cons of a set of lab test results for a particular diagnosis? Is it in a central place?

Years ago, the FDA looked into biomarkers, aka surrogate markers, but at the time weren't convinced.

There should be a database on the web that summarizes data on this subject. However, I don't know about it.

For example, there is genetic marker BRCA gene mutation for breast and ovarian cancer. People with BRCA gene mutation have increased RISK of developing breast/ovarian cancer. However, it doesn't mean you DEFINITELY develop breast/ovarian cancer if you have BRCA gene mutation. People who don't have BRCA gene mutation do develop breat/ovarian cancer. This illustrates the point it is much more complicated than genetic marker alone - there are other factors involved, both known and unknown.

You are absolutely correct that genetic markers only show a tendency for someone to get a common disease. Aside from rare inherited problems or the overly few cases were it can determine if a particular drug will help a particular patient, they don't help much in the clinic.