Chief medical officer and co-founder Dr. Andi Flory was there, and we asked her what would be recommended if an otherwise healthy dog tested “positive” for cancer according to OncoK9. Dr. Flory said that the next step would be to undergo a series of imaging and diagnostic tests. Following a presentation from PetDx’s Dr. Angela McCleary-Wheeler at the conference, she said when asked during a brief Q&A that the company’s recommendation would be to go on a “cancer hunt.”
Co-founder Dr. Daniel Grosu did not make himself available at the company booth for interviews and was nowhere to be found at the company’s presentations on Tuesday, March 8. Dr. Grosu also declined to comment when asked if he was comfortable with the term “cancer hunt.”
The Canine Review also asked Dr. Flory how things were progressing with the clinical trials announced earlier this year with BluePearl, a network of highly regarded veterinary specialty hospitals.
Dr. Flory said that the trials had not yet started due to “paperwork” delays. BluePearl co-founder Darryl Shaw did not respond to requests for comment or clarification regarding the status of the collaboration with PetDx, and PetDx’s Grosu has continued to decline all requests to comment. “That’s something we’re not allowed to talk about,” another PetDx staffer at the company’s booth told TCR when asked about the BluePearl collaboration. “But, is it still happening?”
“I think the best person to talk to about that would be Daniel [Grosu, who remained AWOL.]”
BluePearl aside, herein lies the main head-scratcher: A positive result on this test provides no information about what type of cancer might be lurking or its location. Thus, there’s no limit as far as scope for diagnostics; a veterinarian would still need to rule out every possibility and therefore test until there are no more tests.
Thus, given that the test does not narrow the scope, what’s the argument for using OncoK9 before using the diagnostics which you would need to use regardless to diagnose and/or rule out?
