The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so — so they would make a panel to sequence say 500 genes or a few hundred genes the ones that are most important — in in — in most solid cancer and then they would sequence them and then in one test they would see the vast majority of the potential — mutations that could be relevant to treat treatment for that — for that cancer patient
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
and this is where again NGS um was a really good fit which is how do you overcome the heterogeneity that you need to Now look for a disease that isn't defined I can't tell you these three mutations are the ones you need to find for this cancer no there's you know a huge um set of different ones for every Cancer