We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi Bojo, I agree with you when you say we “cannot simply hijack our competitors and peers test because we think our own is better.”
Apologies if my post wasn’t very clear. What I was trying to say, is that rather than go head-to-head with the competition and rival liquid biopsy platforms, AN’s preferred strategy is to work with them and complement their existing services. Sounds a good plan to me.
It’s good to have some discussion back on the board and last two day’s SP rise have been very welcome.
Yes Thompi
AN does articulate the difference between Parsortix and others in the liquid biopsy space very well. However, we are brand new to the space and others are years ahead in terms of evolution, development and market penetration. Albeit with an arguably inferior test. But they are their tests. For the reasons AN points out we have every reason to see Parsortix emerge successful in time. But if you are a patient in need today, Parsortix can only help with MBC. Hopefully Ovarian will be added shortly and prostate in around a year. I would like to see these smaller tests prove clinical relevance by having more larger studies underway just like ovarian and prostate. These are our vital pipeline. Then we can get accreditation or regulatory approval.
I have seen a number of interviews & analyst presentations where AN is asked about the competition. He has always said that Parsortix can complement and enhance their services and stressed that he wants to work with them.
Sorry it’s a bit long, but this is AN’s verbatim answer to a competition related question, that the Proactive interviewer asked during the interview he gave on the day AGL received FDA approval.
“ These companies are focused on the same market area, which is liquid biopsy, but none of them are focused on recovering intact living cancer cells which are involved in spreading the disease.
These companies work with fragments of dead cells called circulating tumour DN. It only enables the investigation of DNA and actually, because the cells dead, it really gives a retrospective view. If you can get an intact cancer cell, particularly one that's in the bloodstream, spreading the disease part of the metastatic process, you've got the best possible sample for analysis and it's the closest proxy to the existing standard of care tissue biopsy. And you can look at DNA, RNA, protein expression and you can look at the actual cell. So you can look at the morphology of the cell and investigators with all number of different and laboratory techniques. So it provides a complete picture.
But the other critical thing that's different between Angle and all of the companies that you mentioned, is that they offer services. They do not have an FDA product clearance even for the CtDNA activity. They have service based clearances, which means they can offer a service from a laboratory. What we're doing is we're getting the first FDA product clearance. Which means that we can sell our Parsortix instrument and its consumables to hospitals in the United States for the intended use, and that really opens up a completely different market, because if you provide a product then everybody can use it for a whole variety of different things rather than a service.
So there's a very great distinction between us and the companies you mentioned, but equally we want to work with those companies. We're actively keen to collaborate with them, because the waste products of the CtDNA process is the blood cell components and that includes the circulating tumour cells. So with the same tube of blood from the patient, those companies if they used our products could also offer a lot wider information. So we want to work with them. It would be really complementary and we can add to their existing offerings.”
Moab,
The direct answer is look at any DNA based test. We cannot simply hijack our competitors and peers test because we think our own is better. It sounds like you are looking at this from a clinicians perspective. That being, which you would choose if you were in their shoes?
This could go on and on. But my point remains; what added value can fragments of dna add to clinical decision making? I wrote this in the context of CTCs being available. Let us give it a couple of years and revisit the subject.
PS Malachi and Moab are one and the same person. I am not trying to confuse.
BoJo
Agreed. Having live circulating tumor cells is great for any technology that requires such cells (cell therapy, radioliganf therapy, etc) but I think the most readily accessible current market for Angle is for providing the upfront sample (circulating tumor concentrated blood) for MDx analyses. There are already a lot of players that market drug companion diagnostic tests that identify the molecular pathway that is actionable (i.e., drugable). Angle has the potential to improve the sensitivity of oncology PCR testing by concentrating the MAF of the samples undergoing molecular diagnostics. If Angle can scale up to lower the cost of sample acquisition, it could be huge on the front end of the MDx process.
I'm uncertain of the cost breakdown as to how much is related to the parasortix enrichment process and how much relates to post enrichment microscopy (cytology, cell counting etc) to generate a report. I can see a scenario where an oncologist may only want to pay for the lab report once but wants access to the the enriched sample for MDx monitoring of a patient.
FL
Moab, Malachi, Phantom25 (and any other alias by which you are known)
You are missing the point. The liquid biopsy space exists. Parsortix is part of that space now but in clinical terms it joined 3 months ago, and, in a smaller place still; MBC. The idea that because of this, other tests and peers are no longer or somehow immediately less relevant is flawed. Time frames may change this but as it stands we collaborate. So we should not dismiss those fragments of dead cancer cells from which DNA is analysed and remedies given to cancer patients.
BOJO
Sure, ctDNA can be extracted from plasma. My issue is; what is the point of doing so when you can have the real thing rather that an epitope dependent fragment? The problem that Parsortix faces is, of course, that there is not a 100% recovery of CTCs on each occasion. It will depend on activity of the primary - shedding live tumour cells, and the presence of metastasis, etc,. - but, then, the same applies to extraction of fragments of tumour dna recovered from plasma. It perhaps depends on the same factors that govern the chances of ctc recovery by Parsortix.
But my point remains; what added value can fragments of dna add to clinical decison making?
Agree, but does ctDNa give any added info? Also, it is not that simple as a syringe and needle; extraction of dna from all the other protein is complex
You don't need Parsortix to capture ctDNA all you need is a syringe and a needle. You have misunderstood that article you have linked, all it is stating is that ctDNA can be collected from the same blood sample as used for CTC capture
Re your smug 18.49 addressed to me today:
https://angleplc.com/parsortix-technology/benefits-of-system/