just hope, page-26

Whilst I'm no historian on PLT ...

I can tell you that the accuracy and specificity of TruScreen was not as good back then as it is now.

From memory though, the big problem was Truscreen was meant to be the next best thing to replace PAP, and whilst it was far more accurate, the specificity was worse (or not quite good enough), meaning that it wasn't suitable as a replacement test. They then had to start talking about it being a complimentary test to PAP, so the commercial appear was lost for a market like the U.S. that already had PAP well established and all of the infrastructure in place. Then there was the time & money to get FDA approval.

That's why the developing world is the natural first big market for TruScreen, and then developed markets can be icing on the cake afterwards (if not using DNA of course). Polartechnics have been talking about renewed interest from the U.S., and distributors there being willing to do the whole FDA approval thing, but it will still take time and be a bit of an afterthought by the time it comes around. European and other CE-mark countries are more likely to feature in TruScreen sales well before the U.S.

(all IMO of course)

Cheers.