← Return to Olaparib for OC stage IV used for 7 years - stop or keep taking? Risk

Comment receiving replies

This type of research is something you may want to track - as it can only improve in the future. As computing power expands, machine learning and AGI, finding answers will be easier.
This looks like a very comprehensive project, published April 2024.

Identifying therapeutic targets for cancer among 2074 circulating proteins and risk of nine cancers

“Circulating proteins can reveal key pathways to cancer and identify therapeutic targets for cancer prevention. We investigate 2,074 circulating proteins and risk of nine common cancers (bladder, breast, endometrium, head and neck, lung, ovary, pancreas, kidney, and malignant non-melanoma) using cis protein Mendelian randomisation and colocalization. We conduct additional analyses to identify adverse side-effects of altering risk proteins and map cancer risk proteins to drug targets. Here we find 40 proteins associated with common cancers, such as PLAUR and risk of breast cancer [odds ratio per standard deviation increment: 2.27, 1.88-2.74], and with high-mortality cancers, such as CTRB1 and pancreatic cancer [0.79, 0.73-0.85]. We also identify potential adverse effects of protein-altering interventions to reduce cancer risk, such as hypertension. Additionally, we report 18 proteins associated with cancer risk that map to existing drugs and 15 that are not currently under clinical investigation. In sum, we identify protein-cancer links that improve our understanding of cancer aetiology. We also demonstrate that the wider consequence of any protein-altering intervention on well-being and morbidity is required to interpret any utility of proteins as potential future targets for therapeutic prevention.“

This came to my inbox as a Nature Briefing: Cancer from Nature.com. You can select areas of interest to receive different briefings.

Jump to this post

Replies to "This type of research is something you may want to track - as it can only..."

Believe me, this is not the type of research that any patient would want to track.

This is a bunch of in silico gobbledygook based on previously published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), which even if it were completely true, still would not be relevant to zaneta78's question. Over the last 10 or 15 years, enormous amounts of time and effort have been put into GWAS by very smart scientists, but there is remarkably little useful to show for it. There's no reason to think that this paper is an exception.