There is definitely some hate on this board, however do not let it get in the way of the facts. PTI reps are notorious for this. Especially the ones that are currently in the field who know nothing about cancer but take the lead from upper management that knows nothing as well. You are undoubtley a PTI rep, you may be a cancer survivor. This response is not in hate but is meant to clarify some of the previous points made.
“I have done extensive research in conjunction with other survivors” only means that you are referencing other peoples beliefs and work and have yet to come up with an educated conclusion based on the pros and cons of a certain view point. If one continues to bury their head in the sand they will never see the light. In PTI’s case it is most likely a train coming and not a new idea. Some functional testing of chemotherapy in regards to its effectiveness is coming and already here. The smart drugs that are coming out today for the most part have this information whether they will work or not based on how the drug works and what is driving the tumor to continue to divide cells. If the driving mutations are not present than a drug will or will not work. You cannot tell if a cell has the ability to metabolize a chemotherapy agent in a laboratory setting. The proteomics and genomics of a cell do not tell us this anyway. The proteomic and genomics of a cell are only the characteristics of a cell and the driving mutations of a malignant cell. Please quit using these words as you have little idea what they mean and their importance in cancer therapy. They have nothing to do with metabolism of chemotherapy drugs. The proteomics and genomics of a cell can give insight into which drugs will potentially be effective and which ones will not. This Chemo FX test you speak of does not do this. Currently PTI reps are spewing this verbiage to oncologist hoping they bite on it. It is simply a drug on cell assay which has no correlation to in vivo activity. These assays’s have been around for 20+yrs and still have very little traction. The Oncotech EDR was very effective when there was 3-4 chemo’s on the market. Now there are many more. Predicting which drug is least likely to work has been proven to be effective when you only have a couple agents available to treat with. These assays have never told physicians which drugs to use. Today if you have 10 different agents not including combinations therapies the resistance assay’s rarely help make a choice of which drugs will work. The Chemo FX is supposed to be a responsiveness test not an EDR. Chemo FX is not testing resistance but responsiveness so they say. There is very little data to show that it changes clinical outcomes and has never directed therapy in a clinical trial setting.
The retrospective studies you speak about can have some credibility if they are coming from a cooperative group study setting. Retrospective studies like PTI have very little credibility because the company can pick which patients they want to include based on outcomes. There is always a biased in retrospective studies. It is not up to tax payers to pay for these tests. It is up to Companies or cooperative groups to study these products. You have definitely thrown everyone for a loop as we assume you are a representative of PTI now or a transplant European that thinks it is up to the government to take care of your needs. This is the United State of America where capitalism is the driving force of an open market. You must believe it is up to the government to feed your kids, educate your family, and pay your health care. If this is what you want drive north to Canada and wait in line to be treated. PTI has had the same old retrospective study for 10 years and keeps trying to publish the same patients in a different spin whether it is cost effectiveness or overall survival. If the test was that great it would be easy to do a prospective study and have patients shy away from standard of care when necessary. Don’t blame companies and doctors for making money. I am sure you probably have a job and accept a paycheck and pay a small portion in taxes compared to a socialist society. Retrospective studies are not a cross reference to doctor patient studies. We are in America prove what you are saying or go home.
Also I would not blame ASCO for the little to no acceptance of these chemo-sensitivity assays. They have reviewed the data and recommend if you are to base drug selection on protein expression and gene analysis. Chemo FX does not do this. Recently PTI has tried to do this because they cannot test the newer smart drugs with the in vitro assay. Forget that they can’t even test cytotoxic drugs with this assay. Using a different lab to run biomarkers and giving a Google print out of the findings should be a little suspect. Why doesn’t the PTI lab run their own markers? I forgot there are no Drs. That work at PTI besides 1 part time pathologist. Billing for someone else’s work gives this lab no credibility again.
The cancer industry is interested in finding a cure for cancer but ask anyone of knowledge and they will tell you that curing cancer has to be done in a early stage setting. That is why surgically more patients are cured than with chemotherapy. Once a cell starts to divide out of control and has become metastatic there is no way of getting rid of every tumor cell. Yes there is a lot of money to be made in Chemotherapy and it is a shame that drug companies are not looking for ways to maximize efficacy and minimize cost on the healthcare system. If drugs were administered by their genetic make-up the rate of cell death and overall survival would be much higher. It would be a good idea for your fellow cancer survivors to look at companies like Response genetics, Oncotype DX, Mamaprint, Target Now, and Quest diagnostics molecular profiling. These companies are looking at giving more cancer patients hope to survival than any chemo-sensitivity assay has ever thought.
I looked up ole Greg as well. Don’t blame someone else when something bad has happened. I just happen to believe that companies like PTI are taking advantage of cancer patients and employees to help them make money. This is a capitalistic society and in time companies like PTI will go away if their products are not good enough.
To finish your last statement says it all about PTI. If one is faced with an incurable setting we will look at any means possible even if there is no support of it because the hope that you will be the one that benefits is all that matters. To put in layman’s terms Man is the only animal or specie that when we are lost and scared we run faster than ever trying to get away from where we are. If we take the time to digest the facts and figure out where we are and decide on a plan in a clear frame of mind our outcomes would be much better. PTI continues to prey on these individuals that are looking for hope as long as they are paying. It is easy to say that chemo doesn’t work for most patients and this test could help. The only problem is that there is no study or evidence to show that it changes outcomes or chemotherapy choices. I have enjoyed your input and wish you the best of luck. PTI is not the answer and will go away when they run out of money that someone else gave to them.
You clearly think that you are the only one in this forum who knows anything about cancer. Simply put, you have no idea what it's like to get chemotherapy, and to face cancer on a personal level. Clearly, you have taken snippets of what you have learned, (from I'll guess numerous companies you have worked for), and turned it into your own life experience. Just because you learned some clever marketing spins, doesn't mean you know anything about what it's like as a cancer patient.
I clearly stated earlier, and assert that I fully understand what the proteomic and genomic aspects of the cell are saying, and where there might be utility for these tests. I also stated the importance of the functional aspect of the cell. I reiterate, if a cell metabolizes the chemotherapy prior to interfering with the DNA and RNA synthesis, then the proteomic and genomic information provided is useless. It appears you don't have a grasp that there are hundreds, if not thousands of pathways, and that the functional aspect cannot be ignored.
How do you propose one might look at the functional aspect of the cell??? You mention there is something out there. Please enlighten us, oh great thinker, as to what this test is called, who developed it, and where the data is for this mysterious test of which you speak. Is the ChemoFx test perfect? No, and every oncologist/surgeon who uses this information is well aware of this. Are there any molecular tests available that are perfect? Nope, and they are aware of this as well. All the tests and companies you listed do not look at the functional aspect of the cell. There is much more to the cell than the DNA. You are obviously a proponent of molecular profiling, which leads me to believe you work for one of the companies you mention, probably Caris. The molecular information is only one piece of the puzzle. There are only one or two molecular markers that have ANY prospective data. ER/PR has been adopted as standard of care, and helped millions of patients, with no prospective data in the past, or on the horizon. Same goes for the vast majority of markers that are being used clinically every day. Why the double standard? It's pretty simple.
I blame ASCO, but more importantly, I blame Dr. Von Hoff for the 2004 Technology Assessment of CSRA. This assessment was biased, and written mainly by Von Hoff, who's clonogenic assay was debunked decades ago. This clonogenic data was the information he used to write this assessment, and it's well known that he believes that if he can't develop a successful assay, then nobody can. For the 2004 assessment, the doctor's involved, had over 700 studies at their disposal, yet they only used 12, that Von Hoff and his cronies hand picked, which is hardly a fair assessment. Many of the doctors that were to be included in this assessment, withdrew their names from it prior to publication, because of the bias involved. Unfortunately, there have been no assessment from ASCO on this technology since 2004.
Von Hoff has failed time and time again, but refuses to hold himself to his own standards. Dan Von Hoff is responsible for more prospective randomized trials than any doctor in history. He demands that the CSRA be studied with prospective randomized trials. Yet, he has never initiated a prospective randomized trial for his failed clonogenic assay, his failed EDR assay, or has he initiated this type of study for his current Target Now molecular profile. Why do you think that is??? There is no clinical validity to Von Hoff's work. Target Now reps are the ones that prey on the cancer patient to a sickening level, billing for hundreds of molecular markers, with little or no data, all based on one bogus study by Von Hoff, that contains his own made up criteria for survival. An absolute joke, and a house of cards that is certain to come crashing down.
You said, "Survival and patient care has increased tremendously since Oncologist have started treating patients based on tumor type." Society has definitely benefited from oncologists and researchers focusing on tumor type, but saying "tremendously" is debatable. The next step is to look at the patient's individual cancer, and this will begin to be done by looking at the proteomic, genomic, and FUNCTIONAL aspect of the cell, not by looking at just one of those aspects.
You said, "It is not up to tax payers to pay for these tests. It is up to Companies or cooperative groups to study these products. You have definitely thrown everyone for a loop as we assume you are a representative of PTI now or a transplant European that thinks it is up to the government to take care of your needs. This is the United State of America where capitalism is the driving force of an open market. You must believe it is up to the government to feed your kids, educate your family, and pay your health care. If this is what you want drive north to Canada and wait in line to be treated." These statements are LAUGHABLE, and shows how shallow you truly are. You clearly have no clue as to what a true capitalistic industry and an open market are, so feel free to look up Ron Paul, and get your eyes opened on this subject.
I myself am a libertarian and believe in Dr. Paul's views. I was born and bred right here in the good old USA. Your opinion that "capitalism is the driving force in an open market" is true, but does not apply to the healthcare industry in the United States. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year on cancer research, much of which goes to fund prospective randomized trials selected by those that have their own interests in mind. ASCO, actually Dr. Von Hoff, demands that CSRA assays undergo prospective randomized trials, but when multiple, well-known and accomplished researchers have proposed such a trial, they get no backing from ASCO. ASCO simply won't put their money where their mouth is. The NCI is largely funded by taxpayer dollars, and Medicare and Medicaid supply health care payment for millions of Americans every day. The healthcare system in this country has been socialized for decades now, Medicare dictates what will be covered, and it all trickles down from there. I believe in a society where capitalism is king, and the current health care system in the United States, is far from capitalistic or the open market that you claim it is.
I am a cancer survivor, and a patient advocate, and I believe, much like you, that cancer is cured when caught early, (like in my case, through surgery). Chemo is not the answer, and empirically, it is a fact that most do not benefit from it. Are you aware that every oncologist is already using some form of chemosensitivity and resistance testing, on a daily basis? The fact of the matter is they are either doing it in vivo or in vitro. I assert that patients should not be subjected to being an in vivo test, it's just too costly on a personal and society level. My oncologist, surgeon, pathologist & medical director of my local cancer center all believe that personalized medicine is the future, and believe that ChemoFx is part of that equation. It is not the magic bullet, but it does provide clinically useful information. Personalized medicine will never replace a doctor's clinical judgement.
For those reps trying to find information on PTI, or any other company, Cafe Pharma is not the place for you. Cafe Pharma is full of hate and sour grape from reps who, rightly or wrongly, were not successful with the company they choose to bash, which clearly includes those on this thread who bash on Precision Therapeutics. Please keep this in mind, and disregard all the lies and vitriol that these people choose to focus on.
Good Luck, and Good Health to all of you.
