The vision of a world where cancer could be detected and treated before it ever causes symptoms—where a simple blood test could reveal the earliest whispers of disease, years before a diagnosis would otherwise be made. It is rapidly moving closer to reality, thanks to pioneering research from U.S. scientists who have demonstrated that blood biomarkers can reveal the presence of cancer more than three years before traditional diagnosis.

Spotting cancer early is one of the most powerful ways to improve survival rates. Tumors caught in their infancy are far more likely to be curable, and treatments can be less aggressive, with fewer side effects. The latest findings, published in Cancer Discovery, suggest that we are on the brink of a new era in cancer screening—one powered by advanced blood tests that can catch cancer in its earliest, most treatable stages.

How Can Blood Reveal the Unseen Caner?

The key to this study lies in circulating tumor DNA, or ctDNA—tiny fragments of genetic material that break off from cancerous cells and float through the bloodstream. Though rare and extremely difficult to detect at low concentrations, these fragments can carry tumor-specific mutations that act as red flags for early cancer development.

Led by oncology researcher Yuxuan Wang and a team at Johns Hopkins University, the study analyzed blood samples from 26 individuals who were later diagnosed with cancer within six months. These were compared with blood samples from 26 cancer-free individuals from the same health study cohort.

Using a combination of sophisticated algorithms and a multi-layered validation system, researchers were able to identify ctDNA signatures associated with cancer in eight of the 26 patients—nearly 31% of those who eventually received a diagnosis. Remarkably, blood samples taken more than three years earlier were available for six of those eight individuals, and in four of those cases, tumor DNA was already present—albeit at levels up to 80 times lower than those detected closer to diagnosis.

Why Is 3 Year A 'Big' Window?

What makes this research truly remarkable is the ability to detect cancer up to three years before clinical diagnosis. For six of the eight positive cases, the researchers had access to even older blood samples—taken 3.1 to 3.5 years before the cancer was diagnosed. In four of these six cases, the same tumor DNA fragments were already present, albeit at levels up to 80 times lower than those detected by the MCED test closer to diagnosis.

This three-year window could be transformative. “Three years earlier provides time for intervention,” explains Wang. “The tumors are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable.” Early detection means more options for patients, less invasive treatments, and a better chance at long-term survival.

Despite these promising findings, there are limitations that need to be addressed before such testing becomes mainstream. The lower the ctDNA levels, the harder they are to detect reliably. Achieving the necessary sensitivity for detecting such minuscule concentrations remains a significant hurdle.

“This study shows the promise of MCED (multi-cancer early detection) tests in detecting cancers very early, and sets the benchmark sensitivities required for their success,” said Dr. Bert Vogelstein, an oncology researcher at the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins.

How The Test Impact Future Cancer Treatments?

This research is part of a global movement toward liquid biopsies—blood tests that can detect cancer, monitor its progression, and even guide treatment decisions. Scientists around the world are racing to develop tests that can spot multiple types of cancer from a single blood sample, with some already in clinical trials.

The potential impact is enormous. Early detection could dramatically increase survival rates for many cancers, including those that are often caught late, such as pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancers. It could also reduce the need for invasive diagnostic procedures and make screening more accessible to people everywhere.

If refined and rolled out at scale, blood-based MCED tests could revolutionize cancer screening programs. Current methods, such as mammograms, colonoscopies, and pap smears, are specific to certain types of cancer and often detect issues only after symptoms emerge. A single blood test capable of catching multiple cancers before they manifest could dramatically improve early intervention strategies.

Can Early Detection Prevent Early-Onset Cancers?

Current evidence indicates that early detection and screening can significantly improve cancer survival rates and reduce the need for aggressive treatments, especially for cancers like breast and colorectal cancer when caught early. However, early detection does not prevent the initial development of early-onset cancers—it enables clinicians to identify cancers or pre-cancerous changes at a stage when treatment is more likely to be successful and less invasive.

Researchers say that detecting these cancers before they reach advanced stages could open new doors for targeted prevention strategies, especially for people with a family history of cancer or genetic predispositions. “If early-onset cancers can be caught even before the first symptoms appear, we not only improve survival but also preserve quality of life,” said Dr. Wang.

However, experts caution that while early detection is a critical first step, it must be paired with timely follow-up and interventions tailored to the unique biology of early-onset cancers. Continued research into how these cancers evolve at the genetic and epigenetic levels will be key to refining detection methods and crafting personalized treatment paths.

Prevention strategies—such as lifestyle changes, vaccination, and minimizing risk factors—are essential for reducing the risk of developing cancer in the first place. Early detection, through methods like screening and advanced blood tests, is focused on finding cancer at its most treatable stage, not on preventing its onset. For rapidly growing or aggressive cancers, early detection may still face limitations, as some tumors can develop and spread between screening intervals.

Early detection technologies are powerful tools for improving outcomes and survival but do not prevent early-onset cancers from occurring.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a significant update to the labeling of all extended-release medications used to treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The change specifically targets the use of these drugs in children younger than six, warning about the risk of weight loss and other adverse reactions.

What Is ADHD?

ADHD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder that typically begins in childhood. It is characterized by symptoms such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that can interfere with a child's development and daily functioning. Treatment usually involves a combination of behavioral therapy and medication, including stimulants like amphetamines and methylphenidate.

Labeling Change Reflects Off-Label Prescribing Trend

Although extended-release stimulants are not approved for use in children under six, the FDA notes that healthcare professionals sometimes prescribe them “off-label” to younger patients. This is typically done in cases where other treatments have failed or when symptoms are especially severe. However, the FDA warns that clinical trials have shown young children process these drugs differently from older children, often resulting in higher concentrations of the medication in the body.

These higher drug levels have been associated with an increased likelihood of side effects, including clinically significant weight loss. As a result, the FDA is requiring drug manufacturers to include a new “Limitation of Use” section in the prescribing information for all extended-release stimulant medications.

This section will outline the risks specific to children under six, including:

• Higher plasma concentrations of the drug
• Greater rates of side effects, including reduced appetite and weight loss
• The fact that extended-release formulations are not approved for this age group

Monitoring and Alternative Options Recommended

For young children already taking extended-release ADHD stimulants, the FDA advises healthcare providers to closely monitor the patient’s growth and development. Pediatricians should regularly chart weight and height to detect early signs of weight loss. If weight loss becomes a concern, alternative treatments should be considered.

These may include:

• Switching to immediate-release stimulants, which may be easier to manage in younger children
• Exploring non-medication interventions, such as behavioral therapies and parent training programs
• Reevaluating the overall treatment plan to ensure it aligns with the child’s developmental needs and physical health

What Should Parents and Caregivers Do?

Parents and caregivers are encouraged to stay alert for signs of weight loss in children taking extended-release stimulants. If any concerning changes in appetite or weight are noticed, it’s essential to consult the child’s pediatrician. The doctor can then weigh the benefits and potential harms of continuing the current medication and discuss safer alternatives if needed.

The FDA's move comes as part of its ongoing effort to improve pediatric medication safety and ensure that drug use in children is backed by evidence, especially when used outside of official guidelines.

Kate Middleton or Catherine, Princess of Wales reflected on the aftermath of chemotherapy in her first public appearance since she had unexpectedly withdrawn from Royal Ascot just two weeks ago.

She has called the entire experience "really difficult". On her visit to a wellbeing garden at Colchester Hospital in Essex, England on Wednesday, she told the patients, "You put on a sort of brave face, stoicism through treatment, treatment’s done – then it’s like ‘I can crack on, get back to normal.’ But actually the phase afterwards is really difficult, you’re not necessarily under the clinical team any longer, but you’re not able to function normally at home as you perhaps once used to."

The reason she visited the hospital garden in the Southeast of England was to "celebrate the incredible healing power of nature", noted Kensington Palace.

She also met with patients and hospital staff at the Cancer Wellbeing Centre "to understand how gardens in healthcare setting play a crucial role in promoting good health outcomes, preventing poor health and supporting increased recovery time."

Now 43, Kate herself has pointed out to the importance of nature in her health journey over the last year.

Is There Any Scientific Proof That Nature Could Actually Heal You?

Lisa A Cooper, MD, MPH writes in the 'Letter from the Director' at John Hopkins Medicine that nature does have healing power. She notes that green spaces play a role in cardiovascular health, and also facilitates to interact with other people who are there to enjoy nature. The American Psychological Association (APA) also noted that spending time in nature is linked to both cognitive benefits and improvements in mood, mental health and emotional well-being. The University of Cincinnati also points out that being out in nature can further reduce anxiety, lower blood pressure, enhance immune system function, and boost self esteem and mood.

In fact in a video, which was posted by Kate on X to mark Mental Health Awareness Week in May, she said, "over the past year, nature has been my sanctuary."

Kate's Cancer Timeline

In March, Princess Kate publicly shared her cancer diagnosis and confirmed she had begun chemotherapy. As she focused on her recovery, she stepped away from the public eye, making only a few limited appearances over the summer. By September, she announced she had completed chemotherapy and was "doing what I can to stay cancer-free."

Since then, the Princess of Wales has been gradually re-engaging with her royal responsibilities. While she has increased her public appearances this year, palace insiders say she is carefully managing her return to balance her health with her official duties.

Earlier this summer, Kate made high-profile appearances at key royal events, including the Trooping the Colour parade in London and the Order of the Garter service in Windsor. However, she later withdrew from the Royal Ascot at the last minute, signaling that her return to full-time royal duties is still being handled with care.

Just last week, Kate resumed in-person engagements, joining Prince William in hosting philanthropist Melinda French Gates at Windsor Castle. The meeting, reportedly focused on their shared philanthropic interests, marked one of her first official engagements in recent weeks.

On Wednesday, the Princess made a meaningful visit to Colchester Hospital, where she helped plant several “Catherine’s Rose” plants—a specially bred rose named in her honor by the Royal Horticultural Society. The visit coincided with the hospital receiving a donation of 50 such plants.

The rose holds special significance: proceeds from its commercial sale will go to The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, supporting cancer patients through treatment and beyond. The funds will help the charity develop a dedicated program focused on improving quality of life for those living with cancer and those who have completed treatment.

Princess Kate has deepened her connection with the Royal Marsden since her diagnosis. In January, Kensington Palace announced she had been named joint patron of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the specialist cancer center in Chelsea, west London, where she received treatment.

Her involvement with the charity and efforts to raise awareness reflect her commitment to supporting others navigating a cancer diagnosis. While her return to public life is cautious and measured, each appearance signals both her resilience and her intention to use her platform for meaningful causes.

As she continues to recover and adjust, the Princess of Wales remains one of the most admired and closely followed members of the royal family—balancing personal healing with her public role.

The global community seems to have received a stark warning based a new study published in The Lancet, President Donald Trump's drastic cuts of US foreign humanitarian aid could lead to over 14 million extra deaths by 2030. The study, based on two decades of global health data, highlights the alarming consequences of retracting the US support to vulnerable groups, especially in low- and middle-income nations. With an estimated third of these deaths likely to be children, the results have left the global aid and public health communities in shock.

The Trump administration's wholesale slashing of foreign assistance programs was grounded in the "America First" doctrine, a political ideology that subordinates global involvement to domestic priorities. In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of all USAID programs had been cut. The sudden rollback came as billionaire Elon Musk—then leading a federal workforce reduction effort—sought to re-make the delivery of aid programs, which critics claim were more concerned with trimming costs than with saving lives.

America has traditionally been the globe's biggest giver of humanitarian aid, with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) active in over 60 countries. In 2023 alone, America spent $68 billion on foreign aid. But in March this year, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the Trump administration had terminated more than 80% of all USAID programmes due to a desire to cut wasteful spending, as the administration claimed. It was an effort to cut the federal workforce and trim government operations, led in part by billionaire Elon Musk.

As per the Lancet research, written by Davide Rasella of the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and colleagues, the suggested 83% funding reduction has the potential to halt or even reverse two decades of improvement in global health. The researchers simulated the probable effect on low- and middle-income countries' mortality and opined that the end of U.S. support would unleash a devastating increase in avoidable deaths.

The team from The Lancet study examined data from 133 nations and projected the effect of the cuts over the period to 2030. Their forecasts are grim:

• Over 14 million extra deaths worldwide by 2030 if the cuts are not reversed.
• Over 4.5 million of those deaths would be children under the age of five, representing around 700,000 child deaths annually.

The impact on global health systems would be "comparable in magnitude to a global pandemic or a major war," co-author Davide Rasella of the Barcelona Institute for Global Health said.

The findings of the study are especially concerning for low- and middle-income countries, whose health, nutrition, and development programs have been a lifeline for USAID funding. The sudden cutoff in support risks stopping—and even reversing—two decades of advances in decreasing mortality and enhancing health outcomes among the world's most vulnerable citizens.

The United States' withdrawal has had spillovers. In Washington's wake, a number of other donor states, such as the UK, France, and Germany, also reduced their own contributions. The chain reaction has exacerbated the worldwide funding gap for humanitarian projects. The United Nations says that the global humanitarian community is now experiencing "the deepest funding cuts ever," as needs continue higher than ever in response to conflict, climate-related disaster, and pandemic fallout.

Between 2001 and 2021, estimated lives saved in developing countries through USAID-supported programmes are 91 million, including 30 million children. The effect was particularly significant among recipient countries with high volumes of aid, where all-cause mortality reduced by 15%, and child mortality declined by 32%. In focus disease areas, mortality due to HIV/AIDS, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases decreased by 74%, 53%, and 51% respectively in recipient countries with significant USAID presence.

The cuts now in place risk reversing these hard-won achievements. The authors of the study say the withdrawal of US funding will not only raise mortality but also destabilize health systems, undermine disease control, and deny millions access to life-saving services

Ironically, the release of the Lancet report happened at the same time that a large United Nations-sponsored aid conference took place in Seville, Spain—the largest one in a decade. The lack of U.S. participation in this pivotal meeting did not escape attention. Critics point out that Washington's absence belittles decades of American dominance in global health diplomacy and squanders its credibility as a humanitarian leader.

President Trump has consistently justified the cuts as a way to eliminate waste and make sure US spending is aligned with America's national interests. Secretary of State Rubio said the remaining 1,000 or so aid programs will be handled "more effectively" by the State Department and in coordination with Congress. Critics counter that the cuts are short-sighted and could jeopardize both global stability and America's international reputation.

Human rights activists and world health professionals warn that the erosion of US leadership in humanitarian assistance could spur other nations to do the same, further exacerbating the crisis. The authors of the Lancet study emphasize that if the sudden funding reductions are not reversed, the world will see a "staggering number of avoidable deaths" in coming years

They also support more intelligent, effective aid delivery systems that focus on transparency, local participation, and evidence-based action. The bottom line: investing in global health is not only a moral imperative but a strategic one that ensures world stability, economic growth, and public health security.

With the world confronting increasing challenges—from climate change and pandemics to conflict and displacement—the demand for strong, united global assistance has never been greater. The future of millions of people is at stake, and the choices that are made today will determine the future of global health for generations to come.