focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
TG2D, Miavoce has patiently explained how CLIA accredited labs can use Parsortix, as have others on the board. Yet you continue to spread malicious misinformation. If you are genuinely concerned, why don’t you email AN? Please do post his reply on here.
If it helps, here is yet another explanation. It is part of AN’s reply to a question asked in the January Proactive presentation.
“So the the clearance is in metastatic breast, that's what FDA recommended. The credibility and the halo effect works across all the cancers, and you can see that in the peer reviewed publications for different types. And the users, if they're accredited clinical labs, they can adopt our system…..And what we've done, is we've created an identical system to the metastatic breast cancer cleared platform, which we're selling as a research use platform. But it's literally identical with a different label on, so it's up to the user to decide how they use it. If we sell it to them for breast then they can literally just turn the handle, if they're going to do lung etc, they've got to make sure that they are happy with the results under their accreditation.”
TG2D, the sun is finally shining and tbh I have had enough of engaging with you and your half truths. I suspect you are the same person who endlessly trolls on ADVFN. I responded to your post because William asked a genuine question and I then allowed myself to get dragged into a pointless discussion with you. I am using the filter button.
TG2D there are approximately 320,000 CLIA accredited labs in the US. Not all of these will be offering tests for oncology, and the ones that do may specialise in different areas.
You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I see the companies you mention offer a whole variety of tests including drug tests, covid tests, blood tests for glucose levels etc. I also note they offer some cancer screening/liquid biopsy tests but not in CTC’s. My advise to you is to stop speculating/doing ill informed and cursory Google research and contact AGL direct.
Oh, and could you please substantiate your previous claim. Have a good weekend.
TG2D, this is the second time you have deliberately misrepresented what I have said, you little tinker. I have said I don’t know what the split is between the 290 “installed bases”. Some will be free issue or subsidised, which is part of AGL’s strategy to get leveraged R&D. If I was concerned I would contact IG, he is very good at responding to genuine questions.
But, to show there is no hard feelings I’m going to dedicate this post to you 🙂and give you a round up of some of the research posted recently on ADVFN & TG. Not of all it’s to do with MBC, those naughty little researchers. Perhaps you could drop them a line and explain the error of their ways. Three of the clinical trials are very important research, the fourth study is a different one. Enjoy!
1. University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland Effect of Digoxin on Clusters of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) in Breast Cancer Patients; Clinical Trial Registration NCT03928210. (Courtesy of GJ) hTTps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03928210
2. Proof-of-concept Study of Blood Markers of Tumor Dissemination in Patients With Versus Without Intestinal Polyps (EARDIS) https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05648240?term=parsortix&draw=2&rank=6 (Courtesy of Mr K)
3. Prostate cancer trial being run by Barts Cancer Institute. The study is using Parsortix to investigate the value of CTCs in predicting treatment failure in patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy. So trying to predict which patients are likely to have recurrence of their cancer who presumably can be flagged for closer monitoring and possibly any suitable adjuvant therapy. (Courtesy Bermudashorts) Https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05533515?term=Yong-Jie+Lu&draw=2&rank=1
4. “A whole-food, plant-based randomized controlled trial in metastatic breast cancer: weight, cardiometabolic, and hormonal outcomes” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10549-024-07266-1
Under ‘Funding’ - Angle, PLC provided Parsortix testing kits at no charge as well as services related to result analysis.
AGL have updated their events calendar, including the AACR.
AGL is presenting a poster. And there are two independent research posters using Parsortix. Shock, horror…. the two studies are not in MBC…. I hope they checked first with TG2D that it was okay to use Parsortix.
https://angleplc.com/about-us/events/
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/1906
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/2384
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/1909
TG2D, I will repost my reply to you on the 27th January. If you are that interested contact the company or wait for the Preliminary results (presumably next month) for an update.
From my post to you 27th January:
We know that the “Installed base of Parsortix® systems increased to over 290 with cumulative samples processed of 192,000 as at 30 June 2023” (Interim results RNS).
What we don’t know is how many of these installations are research related and how many are pharma customers. Some of these systems will be free issue for research purposes & to KOL’s. However, it is important to remember that part of AGL’s approach is to “get the leverage R&D”. So it is a symbiotic relationship. The benefit to AGL is that it provides an independent source of R&D and further validation of Parsortix in multiple different cancer types.
William, just to add a little more information. The below is part of an emailed reply from AN which provides a further explanation.
“A third-party laboratory could adopt the system [Parsortix] on a research use only basis (RUO) and then develop tests for alternative cancer types. To then offer the tests to clinicians for patient management, the laboratory would need to be CLIA accredited (or equivalent in their country) and then validate the test in its own laboratories before offering it as a lab developed test (LDT). This is common practice in the US and elsewhere. There are approximately 320,000 CLIA accredited labs in the US.”
You will also note that two of AGL customer’s - Crescendo (prostate) & Artios (DDR assay breast/ovarian/prostate) - are using Parsortix for cancers that are not MBC.
William, what TG2D has posted is misinformation. Parsortix has been widely used in multiple different cancer types.
As Jelenko posted recently on ADVFN: “FDA is not required if the company using it does so in a lab that has certain accreditation…..”
AN gave this explanation in last April’s Investor Meet presentation:
“….the customer, if they are an accredited clinical lab, which in the United States, they pretty much all are, then they have the ability to validate their tests, their assays, in their own laboratory under their regulatory clearance. And it's perfectly acceptable for them to acquire our system and use it for prostate or lung or any other cancer that they feel they can verify and validate an appropriate test for in their lab. And so we are actually seeing strong interest in multiple cancer types. So we can sell the system for research use in any cancer type. If we want to make a claim in clinical we're limited to metastatic breast, BUT it does NOT stop our customer base implementing across multiple different cancers. And of course we've got the large number of peer reviewed publications in multiple cancers showing the value of it”
Courtesy of Waterloo & Martyn from the other boards.
https://www.trinitydelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ANGLE-Update-240130.pdf
TwoGood2Die,
You have posted a lot of misinformation on this board. As you well know, Parsortix has been widely used in multiple different cancer types.
AN gave this explanation in last April’s Investor Meet presentation in relation to how customer’s with lab accreditation can use Parsortix.
“So our clearance is in metastatic breast cancer, and if we wish to sell the system with a clinical label on it to hospitals, we must limit what we talk about to metastatic breast cancer. HOWEVER, there's a little bit of a nuance here, which is that the customer, if they are an accredited clinical lab, which in the United States, they pretty much all are, then they have the ability to validate their tests, their assays, in their own laboratory under their regulatory clearance. And it's perfectly acceptable for them to acquire our system and use it for prostate or lung or any other cancer that they feel they can verify and validate an appropriate test for in their lab. And so we are actually seeing strong interest in multiple cancer types. So we can sell the system for research use in any cancer type, and if we want to make a claim in clinical we're limited to metastatic breast, but it does NOT stop our customer base implementing across multiple different cancers. And of course we've got the large number of peer reviewed publications in multiple cancers showing the value of it”
TwoGood2Die,
You have completely twisted the context of my post. I did not suggest that AGL have not sold a single Parsortix machine to date to clinical labs.
What we do know is that the “Installed base of Parsortix® systems increased to over 290 with cumulative samples processed of 192,000 as at 30 June 2023” (Interim results RNS).
What we don’t know is how many of these installations are research related and how many are pharma customers. Some of these systems will be free issue for research purposes & to KOL’s. However, it is important to remember that part of AGL’s approach is to “get the leverage R&D”. So it is a symbiotic relationship. The benefit to AGL is that it provides an independent source of R&D and further validation of Parsortix in multiple different cancer types.
Sangi, it was the FDA’s recommendation that AGL limited their submission to MBC. This is what AN said about it in last April’s Investor Meet presentation:
“When we approached FDA initially, we suggested that we could have a pan-cancer clearance because the system does work, without modification, in all different cancers. They strongly advised us against that in the first instance, because they require detailed information on every single cancer and it would just make the whole process even more complex.”
As you know it took six years to get approval for MBC. So how long for a pan-cancer submission?
Hi BV, in response to your question “I missed the information that AS's latest view is to RNS once the 3rd patient In a cohort has been dosed. Which thread was this reported in please?” I can confirm that what Rambo & others say is correct.
I emailed Alistair at the end of last week and received this reply on the 19th.
“Thanks for your email. All is going well with Q2W in the US and, as you noted, we said in the RNS associated with the data release that patients were being screened. We will update the market when all three patients in the first cohort have been dosed. That’s a more useful milestone than first patient dosed because it tells the market more about when the cohort will likely complete.
We are able to be more selective with patients for the Q2W as I mentioned in the data release presentation because of the great safety data. By doing so we can select patients that will have indications which are more likely to be in Phase 2 – and this will help us to make the right decision on which indication(s) to select.
Hope that makes sense.”
I appreciate AS taking the time to reply to me, but to be honest I think Avacta’s comms have been poor in this respect, as AS had previously stated that “We will keep the market updated at the start of each cohort…..” (Vox interview 5th April 2023).” I understand that the company are “getting on with it” but it does leave us in a bit of a news vacuum at the moment.
Well said BOJO. It was the FDA’s recommendation that AGL narrowed their application to MBC and it took a Herculean six year effort to gain that approval. It would have been an impractical logistical administrative nightmare to try and get approval for every single cancer type.
Bones699 is spreading total misinformation and falsehoods on the ADVFN board.