Oh lord, another poster telling us about his winning picks. When they do that you know they are a loser!
Yeah yeah, what gives you any indication ATRS can get anything done much less a run like that? Another CRL more likely. It 's what ATRS does!
If it weren't for bad news there would be no news at all. So many catalyst and the PPS slides every week! Now a real catalyst that is doable is terminating Hobbs. That would be worth at least a quarter!
Thanks to whomever sold my the 40 January $4 call contracts at $1.00 a few weeks ago.
The problem is that the longer it takes to get approved the lower the SP goes. And this management has yet to show that they can drive shareholder value up, that would take effort! I see the PPS heading to $1.40 by dec 1st and still no approval. Who thinks SUMA is going to get done this year? Anybody? Heck, we got a CEO that can't even give a decent presentation!
Bacidog2, I'm not going to call you a brasher but I would like to see this recommendation. I see where exact science went down at one point Today by 45-% on the news that hit their Cologuard alternative testing. Why didn't ICAD get hit if this were such a threat?
You have to take some of the USPSTF recommendations with a grain of salt like when they also Recommended Against regular PSA screening Which may delay Diagnosis of prostate cancer. Or when they advised against annual mammogram screenings which drew the ire of Advocacy groups and physicians in 2009.
I don't know how big a blow it really is if it's a blow at all!
I occasionally travel to ASM. I will definitely be at the next ATRS ASM. I look forward to asking them eyeball to eyeball why the board approved these bonuses and what in the world do they see in Hobbs!
Is at 45? Compared to AIZ, AIG and HIG it is troublesome. No wonder those companies stock are closer to 52 week highs than lows like with GNW. AIZAWL is around 22. Is all this on LTC?
There is a “significant body of clinical literature” that proves the technology enhances the performance of radiologists and increases cancer detection, Icad chief executive Ken Ferry said in an e-mail. The devices are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a rigorous process that requires proof of safety and benefit, he noted.
In addition, here is some additional color that builds on the comment from Ken in the article above.
1. Computer-assisted devices (CAD) for digital mammography must undergo FDA Pre-Market Approval (PMA) process which is a very stringent and rigorous scientific process. This means that CAD devices must demonstrate through readers studies that they have a positive safety and efficacy profile which improves reader performance.
2. There is a significant body of clinical literature which proves increases in reader performance/increased detection when CAD is used.
3. Each study will have different efficacies based on the type of cancer and the skill of the radiologist in reading CAD. The JAMA article is based on one study and cannot reflect the full clinical experience in treatment with CAD. Variability is a significant factor but overall the vast majority of studies conducted in recent years have confirmed the benefits of CAD.