Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : NSIX -- Neuromedical Systems, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TLWatson59 who wrote (72)	1/21/1998 7:26:00 PM
From: Daniel Rimar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 137

Please read: The new press release was not from NSIX, but came out of Chicago. I don't think the study is very a very fair representation of the cost effectiveness of Papnet. I work in the field and use Papnet. The cases for this study had already been screened by a cytechnologist and determined to be negative. If the cases were screened by a competent cytotechnologist you would not expect to find many new abnormal cases out of that case pool. From the press release: "Laurie Mango, chief medical officer for Neuromedical Systems, said the study's results can be called into question because they came from a high-level lab not prone to mistakes and involved a well-screened group of women whose smears had already been tested twice." If these cases had not been pre-screened, Papnet would have found many more abnormal cases per negative case, and the cost effective- ness would have been much much better. Right now all cases for sent for Papnet testing must first be screened by a cytotechnologist, and be determined that they are negative. If Papnet should ever receive FDA approval for primary screening this would not be the case. This little gem today cost the stock $1 per share or 25%. I think we may be getting into buying opportunity territory. I hope this study will be looked at for what it truely says which is that even acompetant cytotechnologist may occasionally miss an abnormal case, and Papnet was able to find these abnormal cases preventing false negative results from being released for a patient. Dan

To: TLWatson59 who wrote (72)	1/22/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: Pices	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 137

TL & Dan, Here is a post that I think you will both find VERY interesting. It is posted on Yahoo message board and it is from John B. Henneman, VP of US Operations / Neuromedical. I hope this helps. Personally, I am buying some more NSIX at these prices. Subj: Reply from NSIX By: JBHenneman Date: Jan 22 1998 9:05 A.M PST Reply To: Msg. 11 by woundedinvestor I am the Executive Vice President, US Operations, of Neuromedical Systems, Inc., and I definitely feel your pain. That having been said, here are our key responses to the JAMA study and editorial that have caused such a furor. First, the laboratory that performed the study is outstanding, and it has a healthy, well-screened subject population (military personnel and their families). Second, the laboratory performed two (2) manual screens before sending the smear for PAPNET-assisted review. From our point of view, PAPNET was subject to the most grueling possible test -- the examination of Pap smears from a fundamentally healthy, well-screened population that had TWICE been determined to be negative by one of the best anatomical pathology laboratories in the world. NEVERTHELESS, false negatives, including one low grade squamous epitheliel lesion, were detected through PAPNET-assisted rescreening. Not surprisingly, this laboratory concluded that it would not make economic sense for it to routinely screen all its negatives a third time using PAPNET testing, and we do not disagree. After all, if there is no disease left to be found, PAPNET is not going to find any! From our point of view, the frustrating part of the JAMA communication relates to cost-effectiveness. The truth is that there was a detailed, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness study published more than a year ago in a leading pathology journal (Acta Cytologica) that found that the cost-effectiveness of PAPNET-assisted rescreening cmpares quite favorably to other widely accepted medical interventions, such as mammography for women 40-49 and PSA testing for prostate cancer. This study was not even cited by the JAMA paper, which we find quite surprising (to say the least). Another, more detailed, study will be published in the next issue of Acta Cytologica. An announcement with the details will be forthcoming once it is mailed. The good news in all of this is that the leaders in American medicine (including, apparently, the editors of JAMA) are recognizing that laboratories should be rescreening 100% of their Pap smears, and that PAPNET testing can pick up more false negatives than 100% manual rescreening, albeit at a higher cost. Cost NSI can deal with -- we are, after all, a technology company, and can expect that our costs, and therefore our customers' costs, will decline. John B. Henneman, III Executive Vice President, US Operations Pices