Chat GPT 3.5 summarizes / Peter Bach, MCED, Cancer Letter 11-2023

 An 1100 word op ed in Cancer Letter by Peter Bach.   Chat GPT4 summarized with a couple clearly wrong mistakes.  I asked 3.5 to summarize.   (Article is subscription based).

https://cancerletter.com/contributors/peter-b-bach/

https://cancerletter.com/guest-editorial/20231117_7/

###

Please summarize this cancer policy Op Ed in 150 words or less.

###

The op-ed discusses the use of liquid biopsy cancer screening, particularly the concept of "multi-cancer detection." It points out that while there is enthusiasm for such screening, there are uncertainties about its effectiveness, as early detection doesn't always lead to saved lives. The author highlights that focused liquid biopsy screening for specific cancers, like lung, liver, and colorectal cancer, in individuals not receiving recommended screening, could save a significant number of lives (around 17,000 to 20,000 per year). This is comparable to the potential benefits of broad multi-cancer screening. The article suggests that both approaches are distinct and complementary, with their effectiveness depending on the specific context and sensitivity of the tests. The author emphasizes the importance of recognizing the potential of liquid biopsy cancer detection beyond multi-cancer testing, hoping that the FDA panel will consider these alternative uses.

User

You

Thanks, please summarize in more detail in 250 words.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The op-ed delves into the evolving landscape of liquid biopsy cancer screening, particularly focusing on the concept of "multi-cancer detection." While this approach has generated considerable enthusiasm and even led to the formation of consortia, it has also raised questions and prompted the FDA to convene an advisory panel meeting.

One of the key points of contention discussed in the op-ed is the uncertainty surrounding the translation of early cancer detection into saved lives. The author highlights an example of ovarian cancer early detection, which, despite efforts and studies, has not demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality. In contrast, cervical cancer screening has been clearly effective in saving lives.

The central argument of the article is that the effectiveness of liquid biopsy cancer screening may not be uniform across all cancer types. The author proposes a more focused approach, targeting specific cancers such as lung, liver, and colorectal cancer in individuals who are not currently undergoing recommended screening. This focused screening, the author argues, could save a substantial number of lives, estimated to be between 17,000 and 20,000 per year. This is comparable to the potential benefits of broad multi-cancer screening.

The op-ed also underscores the nuanced differences between these two approaches. It emphasizes that they are not substitutes but rather distinct and complementary strategies. Broad multi-cancer screening may be more effective for cancers without recommended screening, while focused screening can address specific gaps in current recommendations.

The article concludes by highlighting the tremendous potential of liquid biopsy cancer detection as a groundbreaking technology. The author expresses hope that the FDA panel will recognize not only the potential of multi-cancer detection but also the distinct features and benefits of alternative uses, such as focused screening for specific cancers

##
This earlier CHAT 4 summarize had several clear cut mistakes, although it's certainly readable and "directionally correct."

The article from The Cancer Letter dated November 17, 2023, discusses the potential of liquid biopsy tests for cancer screening and the necessity of having different approaches for different cancers. It emphasizes that while multi-cancer detection (MCED) liquid biopsy tests offer broad screening capabilities, they do not always correlate with a reduction in mortality, as seen with ovarian cancer. 

In contrast, focused liquid biopsy screening for specific cancers like lung, colorectal, and liver cancer can indeed close gaps in current screening recommendations and is known to improve survival rates. The article also addresses the issue of false positives and the efficiency of focused screening, suggesting that tailored tests could save as many lives as broad MCED tests with fewer false positives. The analysis presented in the article suggests that both broad and focused screenings have distinct benefits and can complement each other, with focused screening appearing more efficient, requiring fewer tests to save a comparable number of lives. Dr. Peter B. Bach of DELFI Diagnostics, the author, hopes the FDA panel recognizes the potential and distinct features of both testing strategies.