Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Gold, you were spot on with your analysis of the company. It turned out to be a bag of false promises. A shame, because I would have liked to see where their technology could have excelled.
Hey Gold, I see exactly what you're saying. But it's possible that those specimen samples didn't produce CEA values, FDP values, or either of the two values.
"(approximately 50 of the originally provided biospecimens did not provide any values so the final data set included 926 samples)"
It's unclear about what "values" they are referring to exactly. They also failed to mention the absolute percentages for stage I and II detection. I am very curious as to what those values are.
Regardless, whatever advantage Onko Sure has over CEA, there is no way to get this test running with the apparent financial turmoil within RPC.
Thanks for the info, Gold.
"prostrate" that is certainly one for the ages. There were a few other errors in there as well. The lack of mention pertaining to the Indiaan order is quite interesting. I wonder how Garza will respond to this. I think AF will respond first though. Let the battle continue.
Gold, I am inclined to agree with you that on the basis of what we know about these studies Onko-Sure will not see any significant sales. Do the actual results obtained from the studies indicate a benefit of the kit over CEA that we are not aware of yet? Possibly, but we can't be certain. Does the combination of the tests give more accurate results? Yes, but I am not sure if doctors will use both. Based on the low price point, it could be a possibility. We'll have to see the actual results to determine that. I am still curious as to what the actual head to head specificity and selectivity figures are for these two tests. From my research they are very close. These studies should have all that information and will either build or bury the test, in my opinion.
It seems as if that pump is already wearing off. No doubt it was accelerated by AF's post. I am slightly surprised that AF actually did post a counter to RPC's PR. However, did everyone notice the tone of his writing? A huge shift since that Mayo (yes I said the "M" word) mishap. I guess, as a "journalist", he has an obligation to comment on these PRs.
Dearest Sunspotter, clarity was not the issue. I just found a bit of SLIGHT irony in your post criticizing Garza's PR release. It was a completely understandable and, as a testament to your mastery of the English language, uncharacteristic error. I am sure I have committed much worse errors in some of my posts.
Gold Seeker, that all depends on how you "add" the specificity figures. Basically this is an issue of joint negatives or individual negatives. If joint negatives qualify a negative, then this will most likely increase specificity. If individual results qualify a negative, then the specificity could in fact be lower.
I agree, certainly strange. I believe that CIT will be given back to Radient/ Dr. Chang whether it be through a purchase or court mandated order. Radient is riding too hard on this one to just let it go. They will likely figure out some way to get it or a very similar technology. In regards to the India order, I'm unsure as to why figures were never in the filings. We'll have to wait and see what the real deal is with that.
I was lightly joking with that criticism of Sunspotter's post.
In terms of management, yes I do agree that it seems on paper as if they are running this operation to the ground. However, the D/E was very ambitious and a good move in my opinion. The deceiving wording of their Mayo collaboration was definitely a detraction from their reputation. However, I am not sure whether they are bad managers or simply too ambitious. I suppose those things aren't mutually exclusive anyway. Regardless, I would like to see how this whole thing plays out. If just one of the tens of deals, spin-offs, new products, etc actually pans out then the company can certainly become the "real deal". I also have my reservations about that order in India. I haven't seen any actual figures either. I'll have to see how that plays out as well.
Sunspotter, be nice. You shouldn't be so superficial. More important documents than an upper level trader's PRs/ blogs have contained typos. These typos should not detract from the weight, or lack thereof, of the author's ideas.
"Mind you, one company was actually moved to disclaim the puff piece that BMR did on their behalf, on the not unreasonable grounds that it was complete crap, which shows just how valuable Biomed Report's research really is..."
Surely you understand my point. How does it feel to be on the receiving end of that? You should apologize to Garza right now and start proofreading his RPC pumps pro bono!
That last paragraph was my attempt at a lighthearted joke, by the way.
You all must be alluding to the fact that RPC has a ColoRECTAL Cancer detection test.
Are you referring to data disclosed in a PR or data disclosed in the article? If in the PR, then no, they probably won't disclose anymore via that medium. I think they will disclose the facts of the study in the article though.
"Doc, I would not be holding my breath to see any more data on the studies. The company has already stated that the next step is publishing an article or presenting it at medical conferences.
To go either of those routes, they can not disclose data because they wont accept abstracts or papers on previously disclosed informmation(sic). In your position, you should be well aware of that."--Gold
Notice that you even give a chance to the possibility of an article being published. Let's speak about scientific publications for a minute. The information in a publication absolutely does not have to be original. I am sure you are aware of review articles. In fact remember what Radient said in their PR? They spoke about a peer review. Furthermore, RPC can certainly publish an original manuscript. What exactly have they revealed about the study? In fact they have revealed nothing about their study as you yourself have implied in previous posts. Whether that is a bad thing or not is irrelevant to my point. Given the aforementioned circumstances, they can in fact publish a scientific article discussing their experiment.
I don't think the test data will be released along with with 10K. Unless they had a reviewer writing the article for the last month, it would be difficult to get it out within the short time since the original announcement.
What are the chances that RPC actually files their 10K before the 15th? With their track record, I would definitely see a late filing via an extension. Anyone care to weigh in?
Maybe he lacked confidence in the proposal. We'll have to see what will ultimately happens with CIT. Looks like they will sell to RPC if RPC wants to buy given the relationship with Dr. Chang. This carries the implication that DR. Chang will patent or could patent a very similar technology rendering CIT less appealing to the market.
Yes, you are correct it had been rejected prior but ultimately he gave up on that specific patent. "10-15-2010 ABN Abandonment PROSECUTION 2 "
"Dr. Chang filed another patent for CIT in 2004 to attempt to circumvent the ownership of the previous patent. That attempt was finally rejected in 2010. A few months later, Dr. Chang again filed another application in a second attempt to circumvent the ownership of the initial patent by Acuvector. Both of the attempts were financed by Radient and the patent applications were assigned to Radient.
It took 6 years to reject the application filed in 2004 so who knows how long it will take to reject the one filed in 2010. Both of those attempts are probably the reason why Radient can still claim a half truth of ownership of CIT."
It wasn't rejected. Dr. Chang decided not to follow up on that specific application and refilled a different version in 2010. For what reason, I'm not sure. If anyone has a chance of obtaining a patent to a very similar technology to that used in CIT then it would be the inventor (Dr. Chang). I am confident that he can change a few things that will allow his new patent and formulate something equal to or better than CIT. Furthermore, RPC could simply buy the patent from AcuVector. Especially if RPC threatens to develop a very similar technology with Dr. Chang's help.
From that filing it seems that Dr. Lung-Ji Chang is the non-contended inventor of the technology. He filed a motion to retrieve his technology last year. Furthermore, AcuVector doesn't even seem to list CIT technology as one of their assets in any of the literature I have com across on the internet. Mind you I couldn't find AcuVector's official website.
I agree that it is possible that the results weren't that much better and this could be the reason for not releasing the the actual numbers. I also believe that the nature of this stock and company is to squeeze out as much PPS increase from "good" news as possible. It could be that they are waiting to release the actual numbers in another PR.
Can it still be adopted by physicians? Again, that all depends on the actual numbers and how well they push/ market their test. Certainly a possibility still. Does it look less likely? Yes, I would have to agree that from the manner of their PR, it seems less likely for the test to be adopted but, again, I must reserve final judgment.
Ok, thanks a bunch, Gold.
Yeah, the PR for the study is difficult to attack. How about the 50 million dollar loss from all of the activities?
I am inclined to agree with you in respect to the AF's predicted activity. Thanks for the reply.
"I listened to it. Salavni is attempting to say that CEA is better. That is false. CEA is better overall. CEA is better in later stages."
I listened to it as well. Where was this attempt made?
What are the chances that AF posts another well-written, completely-objective piece regarding the new study PR and new law firm with the essentially baseless lawsuit?
I would think that he has something written up right now and ready to drop it as soon as RPC trades a little bit lower to help hurt the company where it matters the most. However, I also believe that he may be hesitant due to the controversy surrounding his previous post. This controversy coupled with the fact that he actually had to change the title of his post and re-write it as a longer and more-detailed version would probably make him think twice before further "bashing" the stock.
Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? I would love to hear it. Thanks in advance.
The Mayo Clinic indicated that they had completed their portion of THAT agreement. That has NO bearing on future publications or agreements etc.
"This may be published in a journal like the other Small-Howard article but that is about it. The Small-Howard article showed CEA out performing onko sure all the way down to 30ng/ml and that is a very low concentration of CEA. IMO, onko sure is "cooked" as a lone test monitoring CRC. It not only wont happen, it is a never, never happen."
Again, look at the proportions of the CRC stages. I will have to reserve judgment on your opinion of the test until I see the actual results of the new study.
I'm inclined to agree that your reason would seem to be the most likely at this point in time. There is just no REAL explanation for their incorporation of the tandem-use-verbiage.
However, I must also state that the reason for the "delay" in their actual publication of the results could lie in their fear that those results would not be taken with as much gravity unless it had a well-known name attached to it. I believe that they foresaw this prior to their studies which is why their original plan included a return of the results to MVSS for potential publication. Maybe that option is still on the table. That depends on whether the whole over-blown study labeling issue left a bad taste in their mouth or not.
With a well known peer reviewed journal attached to their results they could further legitimize any positive findings in their study. That is if the results are positive in the first place. We cannot really determine this but just make assumptions at this point. Statistical advantage = better detection numbers. Whether that relates to an overall better test relies on what statistic they are referring to exactly.
It is interesting to me that RPC seems to be pushing the benefits of Onko-Sure in tandem with CEA. I maintain my position that as an overall progression test in an accurate sample population Onko-Sure is better than CEA and therefore a better overall test. The numbers are there to support this argument. Regardless of whether it is "good" or not at detecting early stage CRC cancer, it is better than CEA. You cannot tell at what stage the cancer is unless you do some type of detailed imaging or a biopsy analysis. So, if your goal is to go out there with one test and see if someone is progressing with CRC or not, I would have to give the edge to Onko-Sure.
Now, the argument can be made that the accuracy of Onko-Sure is so low at these early stages that is is useless. I cannot refute this because I simply do not have the early stage figures for an objective viewpoint. With the results of the recently completed studies, we should be able to determine that.
RPC as a whole is still somewhat of a mystery to me. It could very well be destined to flop as a few of you individuals believe. However, their FDP test is a very powerful piece of equipment. FDP in the blood stream is usually a sign of something wrong. Currently, when you are given a blood test you are screened for vitamin levels, fat compounds, titers, etc. Now if you come back with low vitamin D, this could mean one of many things - osteoblast hyperactivity, osteoclast hypoactivity, multiple enzyme disorders, or just low vitamin D intake. Does the test for vitamin D actually tell you anything but what your vitamin D level is? No, it doesn't. Does it help a doctor discover more about your body and potential symptoms? Yes, it certainly does. Using this example, I see the same downfalls of the FDP test as a CRC specific cancer screen being the basis for a great strength in other applications.
Example: A patient comes in complaining of very light chest pains etc following a bout of heavy coughing and common bronchitis signs. You listen to their lungs and can hear the congestive wheezing. You listen to their heart and all sounds normal. You give them a blood test and one of the panels is an FDP test. The FDP test comes back relatively high. Your patient is 55 with a history of heart disease in their family. Now there is cause for concern. You order some imaging tests and you find that your patient's heart is in poor condition relative to the norm for their demographic. You now find that they have heart disease.
The point is that FDP levels give you some very valuable information about the human body. For this reason, I think it is a test that can still be very useful.
Sorry, Gold. I've been away from the boards for a while. I'll respond to your older posts soon. Regarding the filing. At the end of their preliminary they filed for an extension. So most likely they won't publish that report today, correct? Also, they should be able to get the extension with relative ease, right? Thanks in advance.
Gold, I don't know about that. I think you are generalizing entirely too much off of ONE statement from ONE oncologist. Too many assumptions in your argument. Wait for the new test results to see how well doctors and clinics respond. It starts with the patients and doctors. Once they request it, the labs will begin to carry it. They can't request it if more directly comparative results are released in regards to the predicate device.
The respect is mutual, Gold.
Also, what is your opinion on Onko-Sure's potential in the lung cancer market?
I personally believe it something that the Onko-Sure seems to have better strengths for, in comparison to CRC, but where it is also faced with more capable competition.
@ Gold Seeker, The Rainmaker, and Boum-Yeah
“If you estimate a 95% specificity and a sensitivity of say 80%, for every 100 smokers tested, you would have 5 false positives and would detect 1.1 cancers. You round those numbers off and of all the positive results of the test, 80% would be told they have cancer when they do not.
Under the above numbers, the FDA is unlikely to approve the test for screening.”- Gold
Most likely correct.
“You need to understand specificity. It is a percentage of any group of "normals", (those WITHOUT CANCER), who will test negative for cancer.
So for 95% specificity, out of 1000 people WITHOUT cancer, 95% will test negative and 5% will falsely test positive. THAT IS 50 FALSE POSITIVES out of 1000.”- Gold
Mathematically correct. Boum-Yeah, I have absolutely no clue how you arrived at your numbers.
“Pilot trials are constantly referred to as Phase II, Pivotals equate to Phase III. Just like class action lawsuits being filed against stocks equate to shady companies and investors hate shady. Just like they know the difference between Mayo Clinic, Mayo Validation Services and Hellmans Mayo and hate being misled.”- The Rainmaker
Mayo Validation and Mayo Clinic are under the same Mayo Foundation umbrella. They are VERY closely related. In fact Mayo Clinic uses Mayo Validation to run trials that they themselves no longer perform. Furthermore, your attacks at RPC detract credibility from your posts and are ineffective to someone who shares the same viewpoint of RPC as you do. In other words, Gold Seeker dislikes RPC as well so bashing RPC in posts aimed at him are fruitless.
Sorry, invest, I missed the first post. Gold, feel free to fill in anything I couldn't find a reference for.
1. By which means doctors detected the colon cancer in the early stage (stage I and II) currently?
That's a good question. This link here provides far more tests and details than I could off of the top of my head-
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/ColonandRectumCancer/MoreInformation/ColonandRectumCancerEarlyDetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-screening-tests-used
Roughly what's the percentage of the patients who were detected in stage I and II by means other than blood test?
I'm not so sure about this one but I believe the majority are detected using the methods I linked you to above. However, only
about half of the CRC cancers are detected at early stages according to this study-
http://www.cancerview.ca/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rl_crc_snapshot_three_en.pdf
Gold, also this is some proof of the overall stage I and II bias of a sampled population due to the increasing CRC prevalence I mentioned before.
Granted it is for a specific region of our northern neighbor. A national survey may be different.
2. When a person has elevated FDP level in a test with onko-sure, while he is free of cancer, would this level maintain the higher than normal level in subsequent tests? (eg. one or two test monthly after the first)?
Most likely not, if proper procedures are followed. High FDP is almost always indicative of something specifically wrong with your body-some type of degenerative disease. This is obviously not good and must be addressed. FDP levels in a non cancerous individuals will drop after treatment of the disease or diseases. In the case of smoking and benign tumors, FDP levels may remain elevated unless smoking stops or benign tumors are removed.
And when a person has cancer in progression in the early stage, would the FDP level increase with time?
Yes, FDP levels do increase with progression of cancer. This was actually the basis for the original FDA submission. They used 15% increase or decrease to indicate a growth or reduction respectively of cancer in the clinical trial subjects.
I don't believe that the SEC or any law firm have concrete evidence to find RPC in legal violation. Yes, what RPC did was misleading, but from all of the press releases I have read, they didn't actual lie. Or there is too much of a gray area for a judge to decide.
In regards to the recent SEC announcement, I believe the most that will result from this particular "deficiency" will be a warning of some sort. The main issue with this stock is the share price and its maintenance above a dollar. Again, this all depends on sale generation potential from the results of the recent studies.
"Now, back to Onko Sure. If you would just compare the actual true positives in a ratio to the false positives in each stage, the earlier stages have got to have a higher ratio because the actual cancers are more difficult to detect. Colonoscopy is not risk free. A test that produces a huge number of false positives for early stages might not be a test a doctor would want to use."
I see what your saying, but for the sake of having a complimentary blood test, Onko-Sure is the only option at these stages. Also, it is a VERY cheap test.
Also, you mentioned it's ability to detect lung cancer. This is a perfect segue into my next point about Onko-Sure's versatility. As a lung cancer targeted test, this kit could be great as well.
"As for Onko Sure, it has many false positives for reasons other than cancer. Those would be present at any time. I would think that for detecting early progression, Onko Sure would have a higher rate of false positives than more advanced progression."
The last bit may be true, but it is MUCH better than CEA. This is the only point that matters.
"As for Onko Sure, it has many false positives for reasons other than cancer. Those would be present at any time. I would think that for detecting early progression, Onko Sure would have a higher rate of false positives than more advanced progression."
CEA ALSO has false-positive-causes that are non-cancer linked. Take a look at that list again.
Sorry, I hurriedly typed that previous post on the road. If faced with a positive result I would follow the same steps that they do for CEA: colonoscopy, ultrasound, biopsy, or some other type of imaging. NONE of these methods mentioned are 100% so the complement of a good chemical test confirms a positive or negative of a visual diagnostic test.
If one of these comes back negative, I would first issue a third test, most likely an imaging technique or biopsy, before ruling out either the Onko-Sure or colonoscopy results. What if the mass on the colonoscopy was benign unrelated swelling? In this case, the colonoscopy was wrong. I would probably order a biopsy to determine the reason for the swelling. The more tests yielding the same result, the more confident the physician can be in their future course of action.
Let's say that you did all of these tests and they came back negative. In this case I would rethink my use of Onko-Sure for this patient. I would check for some of the more prevalent false-positive causes: heart disease, GI disease, etc.
This is one of the things I also like about Onko-Sure/FDP tests. If your FDP is high, then there is most likely something wrong with you. That is the "interesting" aspect of the test that the pathologist mentioned whom you frequently quote. Yes, I agree that this has the ability to muck up any results when looking for something specific, like cancer. However, the technology could be adapted. Some test to rule out other diseases would have to be "built-in to future kits in order to rule out other causes. If this could be done properly, FDP could be a great marker for these terrible diseases. These are just my thoughts and opinions. Apologies for the digression.
The point is, not every method is 100%. Doctor's never rely on only one method for screening or monitoring. A good blood based test for stage 1 and 2 would be an excellent compliment for a visual test.
In this case you described it is certainly a difficult choice as to what do at stage one. 42% false positive rate, that doesn't sound so good. However, you have to realize that the Onko-Sure false positive percentage for stage 1 & 2 is not 42%. It is actually much lower than this. How low? I'm not sure. As we discussed before, the figures you quoted were stage 3 and 4 biased. The actual figure will be much closer to the results from the new studies, in my opinion. I would expect the figure to actually be near the best recorded CEA numbers, approximately 20%-30%, or better.
By the way, in regards to CEA vs. Onko-Sure, these are all the problems with CEA-
What Abnormal Results Mean
Higher than normal levels may be due to:
* Breast cancer
* Cancers of the reproductive and urinary tracts
* Cholecystitis
* Cirrhosis and other liver disease
* Colon cancer
* Diverticulitis
* Heavy smoking
* Inflammatory bowel diseases (such as ulcerative colitis)
* Lung cancer
* Lung infection
* Pancreatic cancer
* Pancreatitis
* Peptic ulcer
* Thyroid cancer
http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/cea/overview.html
Yes, I do agree that in its current form Onko-Sure (or the FDP detection test) is not effective as a screen. The thing is, Doctors don't like to assume or extrapolate a test's efficiency at different stages so this new study should definitely make Onko-Sure a MUCH more appealing test. Even if it simply a different view of the Onko-Sure test, it is one that can calm any fears. As to why the original stage proportion was so skewed, your guess is as good as mine. Thanks for the discussion, Gold.
Gold, I agree that the odds are difficult to overcome. As far as the normal distribution for cancer stages. I would have to assume that they would be sightly biased toward the early stages as far as CRC is concerned. This is due to the fact that CRC cases have been steadily increasing over the past 20 years. Increasing absolute value of cases means that more new cases, or early stage cancers, are occurring every year. So in a given year, a proper sample should contain more early stage cancers than late stage cancers (also due to the fact that late stage cancer patients don't live very long).