Liquid biopsy

[WEBB PINKERTON]

May be less lung biopsies on the horizon...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oncocyte-lungcancer-idUSKBN16D14W

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gbwillner]

May be less lung biopsies on the horizon...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oncocyte-lungcancer-idUSKBN16D14W

This article is so full of FAIL I can't comment. The author clearly doesn't know anything about sensitivity, specificity, or false positives. The company here should be livid this is the friendly press they get

 

[coroner]

See previous thread on this company

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/oncocyte-the-liquid-biopsy.1178706/

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

The stock price is only 6.20 right now for this company. Is it worth gambling on?

I made a fortune on Digene years ago and am looking for some more cheap biotech stocks to press my luck with. Also strongly considering the maker of Cologuard.

You can argue that Veracyte been proven to be of limited use at it's goal of preventing unnecessary thyroid surgeries, yet virtually all of us are using them or a competitor. A good sales team and press goes a long way.

 

[gbwillner]

The stock price is only 6.20 right now for this company. Is it worth gambling on?

I made a fortune on Digene years ago and am looking for some more cheap biotech stocks to press my luck with. Also strongly considering the maker of Cologuard.

You can argue that Veracyte been proven to be of limited use at it's goal of preventing unnecessary thyroid surgeries, yet virtually all of us are using them or a competitor. A good sales team and press goes a long way.

Save your retirement $$. What is the novelty of their platform? If their specificity is truly 62%, that is AWFUL for a screening test, which apparently this is. Think about it in terms of disease prevalence- this could easily result in tens of thousands or millions of false positive calls. Actually, this would be great for us, because if this test were to be positive, you'd have to confirm with a Bx. That means thousands or millions of unnecessary lung biopsies that you could bill for.

THis is pretty characteristic of some of these Dx companies that know nothing of the practice of medicine. Bx's will not go away, period. Tests like these may be useful in the appropriate setting, but how is this better than, let's say, Guardant Health's liquid biopsy test that is MUCH MUCH more specific?

 

[coroner]

You know the thing I found most interesting about that article was that a lung bx. can run about $15,000??? I don't know if this number is slightly inflated, but I do know that we barely see a piece of it. Granted, I know most of the reimbursement is going to IR because they're the ones doing the procedure. But, an 88305 with a standard lung ca. immunopanel might only get you $200-300 which is a very small piece of that pie.

The stock price is only 6.20 right now for this company. Is it worth gambling on?

I've been watching their stock price every now and again since their IPO. The best time to have gotten in was right after their IPO when the hype sort of died off and they were in the $2-4 range. The bottom line is if it ain't approved by CMS, you've got bupkis, regardless whether it's FDA approved or not and whatever clinical trials it may have passed. It may still be worth a small investment, but if you're considering taking the plunge, I would follow closely medicare approval and make sure their targeted rollout of late 2017 isn't delayed. Not saying it'll flop, but a lot of money has been pumped into startup biotech companies like these. Some succeed, many don't. You're either going to hit a homerun with this, or fall flat on your face.

I made a fortune on Digene years ago and am looking for some more cheap biotech stocks to press my luck with.

Big difference. Digene's test was based on HPV screening for cervical ca. which had stronger scientific data supporting it's validity as a risk factor that could be an adjunct to overall prevention as well. OncoCyte's "liquid biopsy" mRNA has no role in prevention because the lung nodule already exists (whether it's malignant or not). And, the sensitivity/specificity to me isn't high enough to implement this test as part of the guidelines for lung ca. screening/dx and obviates the need for bx.

If their specificity is truly 62%, that is AWFUL for a screening test....this could easily result in tens of thousands or millions of false positive calls.

Not to mention the sensitivity of 90%...
Doctor: "You're test is negative, so there's only a 10% chance you could have cancer!"
Patient: "Well, I'm still kinda worried about that nodule, even if it's only a 10% chance..."
Doctor: "You're right, we better do a biopsy and send it to pathology which is over 99% accurate!"

 

[MSTP18]

Not to mention the sensitivity of 90%...
Doctor: "You're test is negative, so there's only a 10% chance you could have cancer!"

That's not actually how sensitivity works...then again, I guess that makes this an accurate simulation of a convo in a standard physician's office.