Dan, I think you and I share a pathologic craving for stocks worth <$2. In fact you are the only other person I know who bought Matritech--and the only one who held on. To think that you held over the past 2 years is a testament to something about you: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MZT&t=2y
Not many companies can tout a steady downhill chart like that.
Seriously, I have major doubts about the importance of the Bladder-Chek study cited. First, I don't understand from the PR how the study is designed. They say it increases the likelihood of diagnosing bladder cancer compared to cystoscopy alone. Presumably, therefore, there are cases in which the test is positive, but cystoscopy is negative. So, is that scenario, a false negative cystoscopy or a false postive Bladder-chek test? Without disclosing the gold standard how are we to know? As far as I know, the gold standard for diagnosing bladder cancer at any point in time is cystoscopy with biopsy of any visually suspicious areas or known areas of prior disease.
Second, what is the clinical importance of a Bladder-Chek test? If negative in a patient with prior history of bladder cancer or hematuria, cystoscopy is going to be done anyway by the urologist. So, the Bladder-chek test adds nothing to the clinical management. If the Bladder-chek test is positive, so what? Is the urologist going to look harder or have a lower threshold for biopsying? Probably. But, other than that, I can't imagine how the test would change the management of the patient. So why do the test in the first place? The only place I see for this test is in the primary care office screening for bladder cancer. And that is far from a proven cost-effective strategy. Sorry for the cynicism.
I admit that I haven't kept up with what the company has done in other areas. Did anything come of their PSMA test? That was the original reason I became interested in Matritech
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
