Member Info for Moab

Dusty

Good point and probably a good strategy to clear off after the mighty widget is commissioned. But one might say "This time it is different", and there is a grain of truth in this. Last time, and I was a holder then, we had awful management, with the likes of that creep Yeo in the Chair. (Remember the £50K payoff?) I just get the impression, no more than that , that the present management will deliver, and that there is a market for PHE out there. So I remain an LTH, (or a Troll as the paranoid Swazer would have it.)

The Troll Finder General speaks - yet again. The poor guy is obsessed by Trolls, and arrives from time to time to remind us. Keep on taking the tablets.......

BOJO re 18.49

"Your words say that CTC's can come from the primary tumor and the next sentence says it is not possible to determine where the CTC comes from. I don't think I can help you with this contradiction. "

No help needed, as there is no contradiction here. CTCs could come from either source, in what is a dynamic situation, but it is not possible to determine which as they will be identical. (This is in distinction to metastatic CTCs which may have an altered genetic profile from the primary that was biopsied at an earlier time point. This is the important therapeutic point that treatment may have to change according to the altered genetic make up of the tumour as it evolves.)

Meanwhile, kindly answer the question: Which of the 94 peer reviewed articles to which you refer demonstrates capture of CTCs from a primary tumour INTHE ABSENCE OF DEMONSTRABLE METS. (Sorry about the Carrot caps). I really would like to know this as it would fundamentally alter my view of the potential of Parsortix. At present the evidence suggests, from the paper I quoted, that CTCs were only present in

BOJO

I enjoyed your essay.

re para 1) Please direct me to any single peer reviewed publication that confirms that Parsortix has reliably captured CTCs from primary tumours without evidence of metastasis. You quote "I see your point but you are presuming that CTC's only come from the metstatsic sites? This is not the case, CTC's are present before and after a secondary tumour appears." No, I am presuming nothing of the sort: they can come from the primary that is shedding cells. It is not possible to determine where the CTC comes from, to my knowledge. Please correct me with evidence if there is any.

para 2) Agreed, and metastatic spread more likely in presence of neutrophil clumps.

Finally, see and read: Multi-Center Clinical Study to Harvest and Characterize Circulating Tumor Cells from Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Using the Parsortix® PC1 System

Evan N. Cohen 1 , Gitanjali Jayachandran 1 , Richard G. Moore 2 , Massimo Cristofanilli 3 , Julie E. Lang 4 Joseph D. Khoury et al. Cancers 2022, 14, 5238

In it you will read: "The cytologic evaluation identified CTCs in 48.5% of all evaluable MBC patient samples independent of tumour subtype. CTCs were identified in 33.3% of newly diagnosed MBC patients, and in 56.8% of recurring or progressing MBC patients." No reference is made to non-metastatic breast cancer, which is why I am keen to read one of your 94 references that confirms isolation in these circumstances. I hope you can help with this.

Moab

BOJO

The issue for AGL as I understand it is that while ctDNA can be extracted from plasma even before metastases are present (but fragments may differ in length and relevance), CTCs are only present with metastatic disease, and CTC extraction by Parsortix is not a given, even in metastatic disease. So Parsortix cannot reliably add info to that provided by ctDNa. I accept that ctDNA analysis is far from being ideal for clinical decision making, but Parsortix derived CTCs are only complementary when they are present, and that is far from being 100% of the time.

So my conclusion is that Parsortix is a great asset BUT only if and when CTCs are extracted. It is a point about which Mr S&M is a tad coy.

Carrot

I stick to facts. you should try it.

EC

"Law of probability says there has got to be some positive news soon!"

It states nothing of the sort.

Hi Thompi

Thanks for this.

I have just been back to look at the reference to all this, which I will include in my email.

"The cytologic evaluation identified CTCs in 48.5% of all evaluable MBC patient samples independent of tumour subtype. CTCs were identified in 33.3% of newly diagnosed MBC patients, and in 56.8% of recurring or progressing MBC patients."

Multi-Center Clinical Study to Harvest and Characterize Circulating Tumor Cells from Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Using the Parsortix® PC1 System

Evan N. Cohen 1 , Gitanjali Jayachandran 1 , Richard G. Moore 2 , Massimo Cristofanilli 3 , Julie E. Lang 4 Joseph D. Khoury et al

Cancers 2022, 14, 5238

Thompi

No they are not. All the chat from EC has been about the added value of using circulating DNA fragments and CTCs together. There is added value, perhaps. BUT the presence of CTCs in metastatic disease is not a given, as has been shown in published peer reviewed research. No CTCs, no added value.

My aim, in pointing this out to EC was (fruitlessly) to get him to limit his endless uncritical ramping on the basis of the combined benefits of the two approaches.

But I will take yr suggestion and approach Newlands. Do you have an email for him?

Carrot

I was asking you to answer the question. I have quoted from a peer reviewed journal pointing out the limitation on the frequency with which CTCs are isolated from blood in metastatic disease. You can look it up as I gave you the ref iopn here ages ago. instead you refer me to old smoke and mirrors Newlands talking to a lay audience. I put up with about 15 min of this commercially oriented guff, and gave up.

Once again I ask; what percentage of CTCs are isolated in metastatic disease?. How reproducible is it in a single patient? Some facts to back up your cut and paste antics would be appreciated.

Carrot

Please tell your spellbound audience what percentage of patients in these studies will have CTC DNA to analyse: please give a rough figure: 5%? 25%?, 50%? 100%?

I just wonder why the simpletons in these pharma companies have never thought about your spiffing idea. I also wonder why Newland has not suggested it to them. Have you asked him?

[IMHO !!!!! etc,.]

Carrot

"I'll call it a "hold" as I am open to constructive criticism."

Since when?

"

The obsessional Troll Finder General speaks. Hilarious, if it was not so sad.

"@DrAl It's not about quality dropping off, this BB is under troll attack. It's obvious."

Mesquida

He has gone to Butlins at Skeggy perhaps

(LOL!!!!!!!! IMHO etc,.)

EC

Tourette perhaps

(IMHO LOL !!!!!!!! etc,. etc,.)

Carrot

Ahhh! I see. For the benefit of humanity at large. Silly me.

Carrot

To whom do you address these profound and original comments, apart from yourself?

The word narcissist springs to mind.

Swazer AKA The Troll Finder General speaks. See my charts ye mighty and despair......or not. I have usually found hiruspicy more useful.

I assume that there will be an identikit kiln being evaluated in China.

Carrot

You really are a card carrying unreconstructed ramper of the highest order. One has to admire your almost comical persistence. A bit like the band playing on the sloping deck of the Titanic.

Not a single new fact in your latest ramp, all c&p.

All IHMO, as you put it.