@@DrScottBland I don’t think most people should do it. However, if it’s marketed correctly, people will probably think it is much more accurate than it actually is leading to mass adoption
I had a ct scan to check for a large kidney stone. When the report came back it had an assessment of many internal organs. Among other things, it saw that I had my uterus removed, and that there was a spot on my pancreas. I had further testing done on the pancreas and it turned out to be anatomical, not cancer. But I thought how good it would be to have one of these cat scans every five years or so to see what is going on inside the body. Lots of results with one, non-invasive test.
I'm still struggling the statistics, specificity vs PPV. The Grail web site highlights specificity and one in 200 being false positive but as you mention the PPV says something different. I wonder what the specificity would be on the same group of people used to derive PPV and visa versa. I've taken the test (negative) because I have a consistently elevated CEA despite a good colonoscopy and upper endoscopy and good CA-19-9 and good CT, and no evidence of benign conditions which can elevate CEA. I ordered the CEA on my own knowing it was not supposed to be used for screening, but nevertheless it has shown elevated values (about 4x normal) over 5 tests over a year. My doctor's don't seem too concerned, but I've seen too many bad medical calls close up to trust them on this. In Galleri's defense, when you look at the universe of more lethal cancers and take out stage 1 the stats are much better. I questioned them about Specificity vs PPV but just got back definitions and irrelevant info - no help.
I think part of the confusion is there is a completely different set of specificity/sensitivity/ppv for different stages and all of that changes with different specific cancer prevalences. The stats around this become a pretty complicated web pretty fast. I hope your health team can help you find the peace/answers you are looking for
I'm 50, and I was considering taking this test, which sounds like it costs about $1250 or more. I don't want to sound flippant, but hear me out. For me, if I do not have cancer, and the test tells me I do, that will trigger more testing (i.e. full-body MRI) which will cost some money, but ... that's not a big concern to me. What IS a concern is if I do have cancer. So let's assume I have cancer, and they are saying the Galleri test is 51.5% accurate. Well I just invented the Coini Test (I have it right here on my desk) and it's a penny. I flip it, and if it's heads, the test says I have cancer, and if it's tails, it is saying I don't have cancer. My Coini test is 50% accurate (I mean, I can prove that logically/mathematically.) Oh look: it's tails; it says I don't have cancer. Yay! Wait... am I really not going to get a full-body MRI which I know will find lumps and nodules? Which I suspect is WAY more accurate than Galleri/Coini? Best 2 out of 3. Oh look: now my Coini Test says I DO have cancer. Hmmm....
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
So with the sensitivity and negative predictive value being as low as they are, is this a test you would pay for?
no!
Absolutely. And I just took it yesterday
Great video and information! Thank you
Glad you found it useful, out of curiosity given the data discussed is this a test you would think most people should do?
@@DrScottBland I don’t think most people should do it. However, if it’s marketed correctly, people will probably think it is much more accurate than it actually is leading to mass adoption
I had a ct scan to check for a large kidney stone. When the report came back it had an assessment of many internal organs. Among other things, it saw that I had my uterus removed, and that there was a spot on my pancreas. I had further testing done on the pancreas and it turned out to be anatomical, not cancer. But I thought how good it would be to have one of these cat scans every five years or so to see what is going on inside the body. Lots of results with one, non-invasive test.
I took the test yesterday
i have bladder cancer prove by peth report, two days before surgery i went to do that blood test , it come out negative , I guess it doesn't work
I'm still struggling the statistics, specificity vs PPV. The Grail web site highlights specificity and one in 200 being false positive but as you mention the PPV says something different. I wonder what the specificity would be on the same group of people used to derive PPV and visa versa. I've taken the test (negative) because I have a consistently elevated CEA despite a good colonoscopy and upper endoscopy and good CA-19-9 and good CT, and no evidence of benign conditions which can elevate CEA. I ordered the CEA on my own knowing it was not supposed to be used for screening, but nevertheless it has shown elevated values (about 4x normal) over 5 tests over a year. My doctor's don't seem too concerned, but I've seen too many bad medical calls close up to trust them on this. In Galleri's defense, when you look at the universe of more lethal cancers and take out stage 1 the stats are much better. I questioned them about Specificity vs PPV but just got back definitions and irrelevant info - no help.
I think part of the confusion is there is a completely different set of specificity/sensitivity/ppv for different stages and all of that changes with different specific cancer prevalences. The stats around this become a pretty complicated web pretty fast.
I hope your health team can help you find the peace/answers you are looking for
I'm 50, and I was considering taking this test, which sounds like it costs about $1250 or more. I don't want to sound flippant, but hear me out. For me, if I do not have cancer, and the test tells me I do, that will trigger more testing (i.e. full-body MRI) which will cost some money, but ... that's not a big concern to me. What IS a concern is if I do have cancer. So let's assume I have cancer, and they are saying the Galleri test is 51.5% accurate. Well I just invented the Coini Test (I have it right here on my desk) and it's a penny. I flip it, and if it's heads, the test says I have cancer, and if it's tails, it is saying I don't have cancer. My Coini test is 50% accurate (I mean, I can prove that logically/mathematically.) Oh look: it's tails; it says I don't have cancer. Yay! Wait... am I really not going to get a full-body MRI which I know will find lumps and nodules? Which I suspect is WAY more accurate than Galleri/Coini?
Best 2 out of 3. Oh look: now my Coini Test says I DO have cancer. Hmmm....
Good info 😀
$100,000,000 is worth saving lives of a 100 + people.