the review paper cited by country chick - suggests should...

the review paper cited by country chick - suggests should establish which patients might benefit from radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection after FOLFIRINOX - if radiotherapy is being promoted Oncosil would be preferred. The second point - is that you are trying to shrink the localised cancer such that you can operate on the patients for curative intent and have surgical clear margins. This is the primary point where the most clinical efficacy has been shown in terms of the increased number of patients that can convert to surgical intervention. If the tumor is too advanced at a local level you are trying to reduce disease progression. These are 2 different clinical end points to consider. If you have advanced disease with metastatic involvement, then radiotherapy may improve QOL but not overall survival and this would be a third clinical end point in a different sub-population. The oncosil device is impressive and of the other biotechs I have invested in this demonstrates clear efficacy. The problem of course is the CE mark - I wonder if the focus should not just be on getting TGA and FDA approval and work closely with the FDA. Many have questioned the CEO about promises of a CE mark and missing this milestone - however he is a very good salesman and keeps the share price stable through positive spin which is needed to raise funds without significant dilution, he is also very articulate spokesman - agree there is not much positive spin at present, but things can bounce back and think everyone agrees this is a very good product. It is not only the radiotherapy beads as a therapy that is impressive, but also the delivery device and possibly there could be some developed spin around the delivery device in the background. All of these comments IMHO.