RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:GalleriSorry was trying to post a comparison table between ctDNA and mRNA.
It's at this link, maybe someone can post this table
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Circulating-Tumor-Cells%2C-DNA%2C-and-mRNA%3A-Potential-Xu-Dorsey/d730b71bc04ef5f57c935ee18307ecac6a86199f/figure/1
LithLover wrote: ctDNA (Grail) vs mRNA (Stagezero)
2 different approaches. Looks like mRNA is the better of the 2 approaches and probably explains why our numbers are much better than Grails. Ours is more of an early detection where theres is just a confirmation of later stages.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Circulating-Tumor-Cells%2C-DNA%2C-and-mRNA%3A-Potential-Xu-Dorsey/d730b71bc04ef5f57c935ee18307ecac6a86199f
davewho wrote: galleri seems to be DNA based using circulating cell tumor DNA or ctDNA for short. So you must have a cancer tumor for it to work is the way I understand it.
Tumors lose pieces of DNA, but they’re hard to find in the blood. Of the cell-free DNA in the blood of someone with cancer, the circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might account for just 0.1%. Once extracted, that ctDNA can be analyzed—usually with next-generation sequencing (NGS)—for modifications, such as single-nucleotide variants, insertion-deletion mutations, and copy-number variations. Those changes in ctDNA carry information about the kind of cancer that created it. That’s what most advanced cancer-screening tests look for in blood samples. Catching cancer extremely early | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)