I don't know about the price surge you mention, given that the close was pretty much unchanged (lots of buyers; lots of sellers). More interesting would be to know who was buying or selling.

However, I fully agree with you that the news is potentially exciting. It is unfortunate that the details of sample sizes, cancer stages, etc... and who conducted/monitored the trials were not disclosed in the release.

Assuming that it is all accurate, I can comment on the colorectal numbers, where I have experience. The CEA accuracy is generally about 75% with both false positives and negatives. Moro focuses on the specificity as being significant, but consider the following regarding colon cancer and CEA:

• the earlier the stage (more curable the stage), the less likely CEA triggers are seen in serum - a huge weakness with CEA alone
• after removal of a stage I - III colorectal tumor, the 92% accuracy with recaf could actually alter a patient's decision whether to undergo adjuvant therapy such as chemo and/or radiation. This is a huge and costly decision. 75% accuracy isn't enough reassurance for many patients who are told CEA is normal and will not recur. (fyi - stage IV means it has definitely metastasized to other sites, so everyone in stage IV opts for adjuvant therapy or throws in the towel)
• 20% of colorectal tumors don't even express CEA (I actually spoke with a man who had raging colon metastases in his liver and elsewhere, and his CEA remained near zero

For comparison, as far as I am concerned, Dendreon's prostate drug numbers are less impressive than these colorectal and ovarian numbers when measured in potential person years of survival.

So why doesn't the market react similarly?