opportunity
I don't want to retype it all, but here is my take on the ISOBM news, cut and pasted from an earlier post on this board, in case you didn't see it first time (don't want to bore anyone, but I have a experience in this area):
"... the news is potentially exciting. It is unfortunate that the details of sample sizes, cancer stages, etc... and who conducted/monitored the trials were not disclosed in the release.
Assuming that it is all accurate, I can comment on the colorectal numbers, where I have experience. The CEA accuracy is generally about 75% with both false positives and negatives. Moro focuses on the specificity as being significant, but consider the following regarding colon cancer and CEA:
- the earlier the stage (more curable the stage), the less likely CEA triggers are seen in serum - a huge weakness with CEA alone
- after removal of a stage I - III colorectal tumor, the 92% accuracy with recaf could actually alter a patient's decision whether to undergo adjuvant therapy such as chemo and/or radiation. This is a huge and costly decision. 75% accuracy isn't enough reassurance for many patients who are told CEA is normal and will not recur. (fyi - stage IV means it has definitely metastasized to other sites, so everyone in stage IV opts for adjuvant therapy or throws in the towel)
- 20% of colorectal tumors don't even express CEA (I actually spoke with a man who had raging colon metastases in his liver and elsewhere, and his CEA remained near zero
For comparison, as far as I am concerned, Dendreon's prostate drug numbers are less impressive than these colorectal and ovarian numbers when measured in potential person years of survival. So why doesn't the market react similarly?"
I'm still asking that question. I hope your idea of manipulation unravelling is true. But its hard to believe that is the only reason.
Hang on. Should be an interesting week!
