I am bemused that there are clinicians who are still being convinced to utilise this based on a single arm trial of 55 patients which outcomes of overall survival of 15.5 months. That was honestly not ground breaking and if anyone who can be bothered you can look at my previous posts. Moreover, it is a single arm trial with no comparator. You can do a quick google scholar search and find data of superior overall survival. Just for an example, this local Australian data
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10643600/Almost half of the patients in that cohort study had metastatic disease (way worse prognosis), and yet an overall survival of 26 months. The OS of the non metastatic group is at 34 months - more than doubling the rate of survival achieved by Oncosil. This is obviously biased as it is a cohort study but the point remains, Oncosil has not proven to be superior even by their own limited single arm study.
I was an early believer after hearing from one of the initial clinical trail physicians in a conference. I still maintain that the idea is novel. But I always maintained that trials need to be conducted and maintained no physicians who actually followed the data and science would prescribe this for their patients (and preclude them from actual clinical trials available). I sold out when it became apparent there is no interest in further study and a focus on marketing (and in my opinion false data representation) back in 2020. I cannot in good conscience be a share holder in such company.
It is clear they are floundering with convincing EUS practising clinicians to recommend the treatment and are pivoting to interventional radiologist (judging by the choice of CMO) and trying to expand to different cancers (cholangioCA) of which there is zero data.
Just FYI - anyone with anatomical knowledge will know why this was done via EUS (endoscopic ultrasound) - the pancreas is a retro-peritoneal organ and access to it percutaneously (via the skin) is difficult - which was why EUS was developed as a technology to more easily and safely access the pancreas. What does that tell you of the motives of the company? Can't convince clinicians who can access the pancreas to buy-in, no worries, let's find a more risky way to do it. We will call it "expanding the market". If that was me or my relatives, I would be appalled to know that they are trying to convince patients of a riskier way of delivering a treatment which efficacy is not well studied.
I am strongly biased against this company because i genuinely believe that at best the treatment is no different to placebo at this point, and at worst, harm can be caused to patients. The continuous fall in the share price is a reflection of the truth, so is the lack of uptake among clinicians (which brings me hope in my field). I rarely post anything on this forum, as I am far from any financial expert but I do know a thing or two about PDAC and health. When I say DYOR on this, I did, and i found this company wanting on many fronts.
(20min delay)