Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
So that is a study paper right? Not in human trials?
Yes I would be interested in other views. Striking resemblance to Moditope (from a lay persons point of view)
Could this be some kind of indirect validation of the science?
Thanks Crumbs for pointing this out. Always read your posts.
Moab
We know the Parsortix capture rates are high and it provides a superior sample. It is the case that ctDNA is established and deep routed Parsortix is not. Also it reasonable to suggest that assays are calibrated to ctDNA. So the question is, how well do these assays work using a superior sample? We can't just guess. Angle has to prove this. We know that there is going to be a repeat study on the ovarian sample. However, we don't know what else is happening in the background. Is one of the big companies working on a specific or amending a current assay to use with Parsortix so that they can steal a march on the competition? Abbot?
We just don't know.
Liquid biopsy are long established. They are a common part of clinical trials for example as a series of steps too measure outcomes. Currently Parsortix appears not to play a part as ctDNA is long established. It is actually more about the assays right now but if Parsortix could gain a foot hold then using current effective assays would likely be better for the patient as it provides a superior sample.
ATB
"The blood tests work by looking for microscopic traces of cancer in the bloodstream called circulating tumour DNA."
"The trial, called TRACC, is using a test created by US company Guardant Health."
Well put simply it isn't us...
Angles Parsortix system captures CTC's which is a sub section of liquid biopsy. This test is ctDNA
Also Guardant have massive resources compared to Angle
Might be worth keeping an eye on this page. Especially cancer applications. Although one cannot be sure how often websites are updated.
https://pharmajet.com/pipeline/
Also plenty to read on the entire website if anybody fancies popping down those particular rabbit holes.
As I understand it there is a need in testing for a repeat test. Which means that the veracity of the ovarian study needs to be validated with a repeat test. This does not mean that Angle have done anything wrong or that the original study is in any doubt. It is simply what is expected by industry before adoption.
Angle have the samples apparently and they announced in Jan they were selecting a third party assay.
Re timelines, it could be anytime soon or next year. Angle have also said they will only update the market when necessary so it is feasible that it could happen soon. Who knows. It doesn’t mean we wil be notified if and when the assay is chosen.
As you say there could be other news anytime.
People should check for themselves before taking this information as red.
I am also happy to be corrected.
MJ
It isn't easy to see what is happening on this board; someone has pulled the plug out of the bath and everyone is scared witless that they are going to be sucked down the drain!!
My take on it is that Angle need to back up the outstanding ovarian results using a third party assay. Once this is done then the LDT's are go go go. Also waiting on Solaris so basically 2024 should see things begin to happen. Angles form with studies and validation are outstanding but the timelines are also staggeringly looooonnnnggg!!! I don't expect this too change.
DYOR of course but that is the gist of things as I see them. However, they may surprise us somehow.
ATB
Thanks Ruck and Moonparty,
Many of us are going to need to understand how to interpret results and RNS's as they come through (hopefully thick and fast) and your post's have been most helpful. Although ratcliffe writer appears to be on the same lines too!
Is there such a thing as standard medical terminology that promotes accurate interpretation of official updates? It would certainly stop the rampers and derampers in their tracks! An anti ramp - deramp almanac as it were?
ATB
Well done Deepest Blue...
We may not have any money left after this situation, but know this, on behalf of all private investors, we bestow upon you our most highest gratitude in lieu of the traditional mars bar award. Who knows in better times we may be able to raise the funds for a curly wurly? In a non dillutative way of course.
Now with a swirl of your cape, be gone! There are other poor souls that need saving elsewhere at this very moment in other stocks. Ooh err the peril! They may perish at any moment...
Away oh brave saviour away!!
And may the odds always be in your favour...
Thanks Ray and Bermuda
I missed the ctDNA biopsy as it was under other outcome measures on the trial site.
I do find it helps my understanding to post my thoughts rather than have them whirling around in my head unchecked!
Very helpful responses.
ATB
Hi Hasiba,
I believe you are correct. The clinician will have found no secondary tumor site using ordinary scans over a period of time. Mia has pointed out that there are methods of capturing intact circulating tumor cells but they are not broadly adopted at the moment. Such methods would certainly give a better picture of what is happening in the blood stream... My question is, can CTC's (and clusters for that matter) leave the leading edge of the primary tumor whilst disease is stable? As we are not testing for ctDNA fragments or intact tumor cells then we don't know...Thinking about it, yes, it must surely be the case that CTC's can spread though? Just sheer bad luck for the patient and not necessarily a reflection of the therapy effectiveness if a secondary tumor seeds? The only way to stop cancer spread is to kill it I guess? But that of course will not be the only outcome. As others have pointed out, extending life and quality of life will be one of the main outcomes for many modi patients.