The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
you could envision a future where uh actually maybe even move into the more high risk patients with higher risk of recurrence where there's still a substantial number that don't recur but you do this test repeatedly let's say every three months and you don't give adjuvant until you see a signal that the test is positive so maybe even that way you minimize missing patients
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.
you do this test repeatedly let's say every three months and you don't give adjuvant until you see a signal that the test is positive
so this idea of guiding adjuvant therapy based on ctna mrd i think is the first step towards what you know the the future that you're that you're envisioning or dreaming of and and so let's think about which cancers that's going to be relevant in
that would very likely have equivalent outcomes to giving everybody in that group treatment actually maybe even better because you're you're not giving toxicity to a big chunk of patients
it's going to be useful in the cases where a minority of patients develops recurrence