No new info, but a good summary of the technology.
As I see it, Imagin’s future depends entirely on the outcome of the Univ of Rochester clinical validation of the technology. My understanding is that all of the components of the hardware, at least those inserted into the bladder lumen are pretty standard. No likely clinical problems with their use.
Finally, will the imaging yield any or all of the anticipated outcomes? Unlike the pre-approval clinical testing of candidate drugs, which most often have initially unknown effects, good and bad, this appears to be mostly just some physics, optics and proprietary circuitry, using a tissue-staining dye that in higher, conventional concentrations must be used minimally, with care.
As others have, I’ve tried to foresee potentially negating outcomes. Don’t see any. Candidate drugs have all sorts of adverse events in early clinical trials. Most never attain FDA approval. I can’t see any adverse events caused by this technology, things that would adversely affect the patient.
So, the only controlling matter is whether the imagery improves cancerous lesion detection in bladder walls. I can see no reason it shall not. The engineering of the optics is known to work. It’s just a matter now of having some urologists scan some lesionous human bladders.
Will be waiting to learn of those studies.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
