Do you like this story?
Can a simple blood test diagnose cancer in dogs?
By David S. Greene
April 15, 2010
The most critical step toward curing cancer is finding it early. Now, there’s a test that could (emphasis on could) be the most exciting recent development in veterinary oncology. A company called BioCurex is announcing the release of the OncoPet RECAF test, which early studies indicate could be a game-changer.
The test detects whether RECAF, a universal marker for malignant cell growth in animals and people, is present in the blood. RECAF’s expression is related to rapid cell growth, which is characteristic of cancer and fetal development. The same blood test is used in people.
The tests will be available through OncoPet Diagnostics Inc., a subsidiary of BioCurex. Depending on the location of your practice, you can send the samples to the OncoPet testing facility directly or to a regional collection center.
So is this a true breakthrough or just hype? Let’s ask a veterinary oncologist. Dr. Greg Ogilvie of the California Veterinary Specialists Angel Care Center was kind enough to respond at length to a question about the new test.
The single most important thing that can be done to improve cure and long term control rates of cancer in our precious canine and feline family members is….EARLY DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS! Catch the disease early and treat it right away. Identifying a tumor marker that can allow your family veterinarian to identify this horrible disease long before it starts impacting quality of life and threatening survival is a long-term dream of family veterinarians world wide.
This test has been “vetted” in scientific meetings and is being assessed by veterinarians and basic scientists for its true ability to identify cancer while not leading the veterinary health-care team on a wild goose chase based on “false positives.”
Early studies are encouraging and thus interest among veterinarians, scientists and animal-loving families everywhere is high. If this test lives up to the word of the marketers, then it will save the lives of hundreds of thousands of beloved canine friends, thus ensuring families are allowed countless more years of enriched lives together. Imagine: A cancer free world for dogs. Wow. … Its PROMISE is exciting. The IMPACT could be massive.
Wow, indeed.
Cetyl A Joint Action Formula Recall alert from the FDA: Response Products is recalling certain lots of Advanced Cetyl M Joint Action Formula because of a salmonella contamination risk. The FDA’s recall notice is here.
Increased animal protection is in force in the Rocky Mountain State: Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill into law this week that will provide protection for pets against perpetrators of domestic violence. From the AP story, via Colorado Connection:
The measure signed Monday will allow judges to order suspected domestic abusers in Colorado to stay away from family pets and livestock. [Gov.] Ritter says domestic abusers can harm or threaten to harm pets to intimidate their victims. Advocates say some victims of domestic violence are afraid to leave abusive homes out of fear for the animals they may have to leave behind.
Finding Bruno in the Big Apple: In Queens, New York, a little Brussels Griffon named Bruno escaped from his collar and was loose in the big city. Luckily, his owners were both enterprising and persistent. In a New York Times article about Bruno’s adventure, one of his owners, Alfonso Quiroz, said he posted on Bruno’s Facebook page “Bruno the Brussels is lost. Please look for him.”
Right about that time, Juan Arroyave, a window mechanic from Colombia who lives in College Point, Queens, was leaving a store on Roosevelt Avenue, by 84th Street, when he saw Bruno running in and out of traffic, with no one behind him. Mr. Arroyave did not think much of it until he spotted Bruno again, about 10 blocks from where he had first seen him on Roosevelt Avenue.
“I thought to myself, ‘This dog is too beautiful to be a street dog,’ ” Mr. Arroyave said. “So I went running after him until I caught him.”
Wanted posters about Bruno started appearing all over the neighborhood. …
That is where Mr. Arroyave found one of them Friday afternoon. He had gone back to the area to see if he would come across some sign of an owner looking for a lost dog. He called a cellphone number listed on the poster and reached Mr. Quiroz. “I got your dog,” Mr. Arroyave told him.
Noise control revisited: One more reason why I read Pet Connection’s BFF Dr. Patty Khuly so religiously. She hits the nail on the head in her latest Fully Vetted column on the subject of noise control, specifically the new version of the Dazer:
Problem is, while its high-frequency emission is reliable, it doesn’t always achieve the desired result: deterring dogs from yapping unnecessarily.
And it’s not just the (aptly named) Dazer. I could rattle off a list of a dozen such products, all of which have earned them seriously low-achieving marks after a few short weeks in play. Because it’s almost always the same in the end: The product works great at the outset … only to lose its mojo quickly down the line once the inevitable desensitization sets in.
Why? Because the success of these devices relies on the simple element of surprise. Most dogs, in fact, are merely baffled into bark inactivity. They still have the basic desire to bark away their boredom, or howl out their anxiety, they just happen not to have a reason to do so now that they’ve been so oddly interrupted, and thankfully distracted … for now, anyway.
Nice seat you got there, Bullseye. Target Field, the Minnesota Twins’ new open-air baseball stadium, opened this week. Target’s mascot Bullseye had a front row seat – literally. I don’t know where Bullseye came up with the $275 for the ticket, much less her snazzy new Twins jersey.
I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories. Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an e-mail.
Photo credits — Pax: Flickr Creative Commons (labanex.com) Bruno: Robert Caplin, NYT
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
The false-positive return with the PSA blood test for prostate cancer in humans is alarmingly high, leading to expensive, painful, invasive procedures and unnecessary treatments. And of course, the fear and anxiety of the misdiagnosed men and their families.
I’d be quite cautious about this blood test. Especially given that it doesn’t seem to indicate what kind of cancer, or where to look, if it comes back as a positive.
The veterinary oncologist sounds more like a gee-whiz marketer who got into the buzz bombs with Gina’s puppy than a prudent health-care professional.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 15, 2010 @ 7:44 am
Uh, Heather, it’s important to know from whence you speak before you start lobbing aspersions around the room. Dr. Ogilvie is a veterinary oncology expert. His clinics specialize in cancer treatment. He isn’t a marketing shill I pulled out of thin air, and his interest is in treatment and cure, not selling a product. Gee-whiz couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact that you haven’t heard of him doesn’t disqualify his expertise. The piece (and Dr. Ogilvie) made it crystal clear that we’re talking about potential, still being investigated and verified. The concern for the quality of specificity is precisely one of the elements being looked at closely. Read Dr. Ogilvie’s quote and you’ll see he said just that. However, IF this proves to be a reliable first screening tool at veterinarians’ disposal, it COULD (and if you look at the article you’ll see that the word was highlighted in italics for emphasis) be an enormous step forward.
Comment by David S. Greene — April 15, 2010 @ 8:28 am
Dr. Ogilvie’s bio.
He’s a god in veterinary oncology circles, so much so that he’s a VIN consultant (and VIN boss Dr. Paul Pion has no tolerance for shills) and also has the respect and admiration of our own Christie Keith, who also has the finest-tuned of bullshit detectors.
Yes, Question Everything is our motto here, but in fact, the creds of this guy pass muster.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 15, 2010 @ 8:36 am
Dr. Greg Ogilvie is one of the veterinary experts I respect most in the world, and I thought his response was optimistic but measured — he clearly said IF this is as good in the real world as its proponents say it is, then this could really change our fight against cancer.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 15, 2010 @ 8:38 am
I don’t care about the argument from authority. This:
Imagine: A cancer free world for dogs. Wow. … Its PROMISE is exciting. The IMPACT could be massive.
borders on fanboy squee.
I could not find a single peer-reviewed paper on this process. Some on the websites of the sellers and developers that concluded that this marker has “promise,” but nothing in the medical journals.
I expect to see the peer-reviewed studies of the ACTUAL PRODUCT that is being sold before someone starts hawking a medical test for north of $100 per. Specifically, I want to see statistically significant samples — preferably large clinical trials — that reveal the actual incidence of both false positives and false negatives.
It should not be up to patients — or in the case of animals, the owners of patients — to foot the bill to find out whether a test is any damned good or not.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 15, 2010 @ 9:05 am
I checked the Bicourex financial reports (it is a public company) and web site and could not find reference to any actual studies, just the confidence interval. I am curious about it.
Comment by Erich Riesenberg — April 15, 2010 @ 9:53 am
Healther said:
“I don’t care about the argument from authority.”
You also apparently don’t understand what it is.
First, you questioned Dr. Ogilvie’s credentials, to which giving them is the only possible response.
However, even had you not, the “argument from authority” is only a logical fallacy when the “authority” isn’t one, or the authority is making a fallacious claim despite being a genuine expert in his or her field.
Since Dr. Ogilvie’s only claim was that this was promising and exciting and, if it pans out, could really change the face of veterinary cancer treatment, and he’s perhaps one of the most renowned veterinary oncologists in the world, there was no logical fallacy in sharing his expert take on this with the world.
When we heard about this test, we asked him what he thought, in order to determine whether or not it was worth sharing with our readers. Given the amount of misery and pain this man has seen in his decades of practice, I’m delighted to see him squee at the prospect. I wouldn’t want to let someone treat my pet’s cancer who wouldn’t feel just that way.
You’re of course welcome to be as curmudgeonly as you wish about this news, and it may well turn out to be not worth the digital space we gave it, but to act like we shouldn’t have reported this until there’d been bazillion double blind studies is just silly. Our due diligence wasn’t waiting for those studies, it was:
Presenting this as a POTENTIALLY big deal, and bringing you access to the views of an expert few of you would be able to ask on your own.
You don’t like it? Fine. But I don’t see a factual basis for your objections.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 15, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
I would be cautious as well with a cancer test that cost $100.00 and “could” be helpful in detecting cancer - I’ve lost most of my dogs to cancer (#2 culprit has been heart disease) -I never found out where the primary tumor started - my last go round with the dreaded big c was my dear pit bull - I had one surgery and then I decided no more and let him live until the end when I had to decide to let him go (and he lived a good quality of life for at least 2 years) My border collie dear girl…I had 3 surgeries for her cancer and she suffered with my choice. I’m reluctant to have surgeries for cancer on my dogs because of what I put her through…no easy way on this.
Comment by mary frances — April 15, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
While I know that to some people $100 is a lot, to others, it’s nothing. It’s not up to me to decide how people should spend their money, or what they can afford. But on the scale of the tests and treatments for cancer, $100 is chump change.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 15, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
To me $100.00 wouldn’t be the issue - it would be the could detect part..I think it’s great this could be a test to detect cancer. I’ve had cancer myself - I’m a cancer survivor myself, that’s the term - and I discovered my own tumor - I read way too much about cancer when I had cancer but what I gathered is: we’re still very much in the dark ages when it comes to the disease. (my humble opinion) We still have basically 3 treatments only - radiation, surgery, chemo (or as some cancer patients put it burning, cutting and poison) BUT the future will exclude all three of those - and on this I have no doubt (some new treatments are already becoming available) - and if this test is progress in the direction of better cancer treatment..well a big hearty sincere yahoo! And thank you for writing about it.
Comment by mary frances — April 15, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
I’ve been very fortunate (so far) that none of the dozen dogs I’ve owned has gotten cancer, and I’m glad to learn that there MAY be a helpful test on the horizon. Yes, $100 is a fair amount, but as Christie says, not much compared to other tests and treatments (I just had my 10 year old epileptic collie’s teeth cleaned and the blood work, round of antibiotics, SAM-E, and cleaning came to $625).
Comment by Marge — April 15, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
and Houlahan - fanboy squee? God love ya, had to google that one.
Comment by mary frances — April 15, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
David, YOU chose the quote from your authority.
The QUOTE does not include any information or insight about the basic science that is the basis of the test, nor any numbers about why it is “promising.” There was nothing in that QUOTE that should induce any prudent person to part with an additional $100+ at every well-dog checkup (which is essentially what the manufacturer is pushing — not some time in the future, but right now, today), because there was no information.
I was commenting on the QUOTE.
Attacking me because you all have great respect for the “authority” who provided the quote doesn’t add any information or weight to what you chose to quote.
The question still remains. Where are the peer-reviewed published studies that demonstrate the usefulness of this test? — the proportion of false positives and false negatives to accurate detections, for one, but also its overall ability to provide information that actually improves the outcomes for the patients who are tested.
How would you like your vet to call you up with this tidbit —
“Your apparently healthy dog has tested positive for ‘cancer.’ We don’t have any idea what kind, or where, or how advanced, or whether it is metastatic, or actually whether or not he has cancer at all, and we can’t even tell you how likely it is that the test is a false positive, but you can chew on this and try to decide what to do.”
Again, I don’t see why paying patients, and the owners of patients, should be the ones to find out whether a test is any damned good. That onus is on the people who are selling it. The appropriate response to the sales pitch is not “How exciting if you aren’t lying to me!” but “Prove it.” The fact that the test is “still being investigated and verified” while it is currently for sale to the owners of patients and being shilled as part of a routine exam on the seller’s website is appalling.
Unfortunately, medical tests are not regulated for efficacy even to the inadequate degree that drugs are. The sellers of the test haven’t had to meet any standards in order to hang out the shingle. And they haven’t chosen to present any peer-reviewed papers in lieu of regulatory compliance. But there are several telling disclaimers in their PDF meant for veterinarians, including:
The calculation of the positive/negative cutoff value and the sensitivity and specificity
of the test are estimated from a relatively small number of samples and might not
reflect the values obtained from a larger number of samples and might require
adjustment as the number of samples increases.
In other words, “We haven’t bothered to test on enough samples to achieve statistical significance.”
And there’s no apparent intent to perform systematic follow-up on the accuracy and usefulness of results provided to paying clients.
For Pete’s sake, they don’t even refund the price of the test when the result they report is wrong. When an “independent pathologist” reports either that the test was a false negative (so maybe the animal dies because cancer was erroneously “ruled out”) or a false positive (so the owners just spent a mint on the cancer snipe hunt and got a good scare for nothing), they’ll credit the vet for a free test. Kind of like the guarantees from those puppymills that will send you a “replacement” as long as you send back the sick one you bought first.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 15, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Whoaaaaaa! This discussion sure got scary as I read through the progression of posts.
Having founded a nonprofit that funds cancer treatment for working dogs ( http://grants.landofpuregold.com ) and research in comparative oncology (study of cancers that occur similarly in humans and companion animals), I am always on the lookout for the latest and greatest. Sadly, it seems most articles discuss future trends or future promise. Yet, we are moving forward.
Dr. Greg Ogilvie is a recognized leader in the fight. In fact, my foundation provided him with $15,000. But, like many in the field, his words were *measured*. He, like many of us, are hoping that tests like this one can eventually be perfected and ultimately added to other routine blood tests.
I think the author of the post was clear about the *could* element. I am sure that Dr. Ogilvie is aware of the detailed disclaimer page from the company, and, I would agree, that the page is a bit frightening, especially with the indication that: The OncoPet RECAF™ test has NOT been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or any other regulatory organization in any country for use in the diagnosis of cancer in any species and there is no assurance when or if such approval will be forthcoming.
At my site ( http://cancer.landofpuregold.com/screening.htm ) I talk about diagnostic cancer screening. The company PetScreen also looks promising, already having developed a screen for canine lymphoma. You are going to see many new companies emerging as a result of post genomic research.
Comment by Rochelle Lesser — May 1, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Something did not ring true about this article. I know that Dr. Ogilvie would never make the above comments about an unproven test with a huge number of false positives.
I contacted Dr. Ogilvie asking him about being quoted on Pet Connection. This was his response.
“I have never discussed this subject nor have I authorized any comments about it.”
Dr. Greg Ogilvie
An explanation on the source of the quoted comments needs to be made by Pet connection.
Comment by John Adams — July 12, 2010 @ 10:14 am
That comment was a direct copy and paste from Dr. Ogilvie’s email in response to our query. I have the entire email thread. If you’re in touch with Dr. Ogilvie and he has concerns, he can email any of us here at Pet Connection, or Dr. Becker when he returns from his vacation, and we’ll forward him the email.
His comments are accurate and as he wrote them.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 12, 2010 @ 10:26 am
As noted above, early detction and diagnosis of cancer is very important for enhancing cure rates. Thus far, no sensitive and specific test exists that allows us the grace of detecting cancer prior to the time it becomes a clinical problem. The concept of this diagnostic test is wonderful. The application of the test noted above and the published scientific proof of its efficacy by the general veterinary and biomedical community is still in process I am sure. Thus, “the jury is still out.”
Gregory K. Ogilvie, DVM
Diplomate ACVIM (Internal Medicine, Oncology)
Diplomate ECVIM-CA (Oncology)
Director, Angel Care Cancer Center
Comment by Greg Ogilvie — July 12, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Dear Dr. Ogilvie,
Thanks so much for coming by to add your additional remarks!
Christie Keith
Comment by Christie Keith — July 12, 2010 @ 2:27 pm