A method for simultaneously diagnosing multiple cancers

The researchers reported a method for detecting several types of cancer in blood samples based on immune response signals, but some people are skeptical about such detection methods.

Researchers at Arizona State University in Tempe have developed an inexpensive blood test that can detect several common cancers based on the immune response they trigger. They used a randomly generated array of peptides to bind antibodies in human blood samples from healthy people or from people with five different cancers. Based on binding patterns or immune signals, the researchers were able to distinguish all five types of cancer. The team also used another randomly generated peptide matrix to distinguish the link between a wider range of cancers and other diseases. The findings were published on July 14th at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Antonia Vlahou, a clinical proteome researcher at the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Athens Academy of Athens, said, “The idea is simple and subtle, but there are things that have been missed.” She did not participate in the study. But she said that it is not clear from the article how well the peptide array and immune signal work, because it is impossible to tell us which antibodies bind to these peptides. “We have to know exactly what is combined, so that we can explain the connection to the disease,” she said. “It is necessary to better describe the measurement characteristics.”

Harald Mischak, a scientist at the University of Glasgow who studies the proteomics marker, said: "I must admit that this sounds too good and unbelievable."

Phillip Stafford, an immunologist and biochemist at Arizona State University, led the work. He admits that although it is unclear which antibodies identify the signs of each cancer, he insists that his team's research methods are effective.

The researchers obtained more than 10,000 random peptides from both groups to screen for unique antibody types in blood samples from cancer patients. Traditionally, biomarker detection is based on a very limited number of peptides and antibodies, but Stafford says it seems more efficient to use more species and quantities. "Unless you are 100% certain that you know what the target signal is, trying to guess or predicting what protein will react to your immune system is futile."

Stafford's team used a random number generator to generate its peptide array, 17 different amino acid-producing peptides, plus three structural standard proteins. Proteins and other biomolecules produced by cancer cells are different from those produced by healthy cells. The patient's immune system will respond to these unfamiliar molecules, releasing antibodies that bind to the peptide array and form an immune signal.

To determine that these immune signals are associated with certain diseases, Stafford and his colleagues collected blood samples from 20 patients with breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, multiple myeloma, glioblastoma, or esophageal cancer, and collected them simultaneously. Blood samples from 20 healthy individuals served as controls. The team used these samples to study the immune response of each malignant tumor. The researchers then evaluated more than 120 blood samples with the same disease and found that they were able to correctly diagnose 95% of patients.

To further test their immune signaling system, the researchers used nearly 1,500 healthy controls and 14 patients, including several types of breast cancer and non-cancer diseases such as pancreatitis. They used about three-quarters of the samples to train another randomly generated peptide array. They were then tested for their ability to assess samples of the remaining people with the same condition, which can make more than 98% of the correct diagnosis.

Stafford said that because he is a consultant at HealthTell, he developed diagnostic tests based on the technology of his research team. Chandler, based in Arizona, plans to direct these tests directly to consumers, at least in the primary market.

But Vlahou and Mischak argue that the clinical significance of such an ordinary cancer screening is limited because doctors tend to test specific high-risk groups rather than the general population. Vlahou says, for example, doctors are more interested in validating biomarkers that distinguish between bladder cancer and benign bladder conditions, rather than giving tests to capture all cancers. “I don’t think that testing for multiple cancers has an impact on the clinic,” she said.

Mischak said, “The final report may show that their report is true, but at least one person should be skeptical.”

From:
http://?articles.view/articleNo/40487/title/A-Multi-Cancer-Diagnostic-/
(Lianke Biological Translation)