Thanks so much for coming by to add your additional remarks!

Christie Keith

His comments are accurate and as he wrote them.

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.

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.

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.