Author Interviews, Brain Cancer - Brain Tumors, Imperial College / 20.08.2019
Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers May Soon Detect Aggressive Brain Cancer
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_50964" align="alignleft" width="149"]
Prof. Georgios Giamas[/caption]
Georgios Giamas, (Dr. Biol. Hum.)
Professor of Cancer Cell Signalling
Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange
University of Sussex -School of Life Sciences
Visiting Professor, Imperial College, London
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: This study focuses on Glioblastoma (GBM), which is one of the most aggressive solid tumours for which treatment options and biomarkers are limited.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
- Glioblastoma cells produce nanosized vesicles (aka: extracellular vesicles) that contain specific protein signatures, which can indicate the behaviour and phenotype of the respective cells of origin.
-We have identified and described certain vesicle-associated biomarkers that correspond to the most aggressive brain cancers.
-Our results can provide insights for the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods as well as personalized treatment strategies
Prof. Georgios Giamas[/caption]
Georgios Giamas, (Dr. Biol. Hum.)
Professor of Cancer Cell Signalling
Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange
University of Sussex -School of Life Sciences
Visiting Professor, Imperial College, London
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: This study focuses on Glioblastoma (GBM), which is one of the most aggressive solid tumours for which treatment options and biomarkers are limited.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
- Glioblastoma cells produce nanosized vesicles (aka: extracellular vesicles) that contain specific protein signatures, which can indicate the behaviour and phenotype of the respective cells of origin.
-We have identified and described certain vesicle-associated biomarkers that correspond to the most aggressive brain cancers.
-Our results can provide insights for the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods as well as personalized treatment strategies

Leighton Ku, PhD, MPH
Professor, Dept. of Health Policy and Management
Director, Center for Health Policy Research
Milken Institute School of Public Health
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: In this study, we examined how requirements that low-income adults work in order to keep their food assistance benefits (SNAP, formerly called food stamps) affects the number of people receiving benefits. Briefly, we found, based on analyses of data from 2,410 counties from 2013 to 2017, that soon after work requirements are introduced, more than a third of affected participants lose their food assistance. This meant that about 600,000 poor adults lost food assistance very quickly.
This is important for two reasons:
(1) Work requirements create greater hardship, including food insecurity and increased risk of health problems, when poor people lose their nutrition benefits.
(2) The Trump Administration is trying to broaden this policy, expanding it further in SNAP, but also applying work requirements to Medicaid (for health insurance) and public housing benefits. This is a massive effort at social experimentation that will cause tremendous harm.
And the sad part is that we already know, from other research, that these work requirement programs do not actually help people get jobs, keep them or to become more self-sufficient. This is because the work requirements do not address the real needs of low-income unemployed people, to learn how to get better job skills or to have supports, such as child care, transportation or health insurance, that let them keep working.




