Talk:RGCC test

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


It's extremely amusing that's testimonial page redirects you to a 404 page! —HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 05:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My personal experience[edit]

My sister Maria passed away 6 years ago from triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) after a 4 year fight. During her treatment she sent 3 times blood samples to RGCC (20 ml) for the full test. The cost of the test at that time was 1200 euros and took 8 days from the day the sample reached the lab to the day we received results by email. I still have all tests and they are available to anyone might be interested. My impression is that this test is not fake. On the contrary, I think they do pretty good job. I would try to explain why. Regarding regular markers like HER, estrogen, progesterone, vegf and egf, the results by RGCC were very similar to the ones from the conventional biopsy. I have to say that we never informed the lab about the details of my sister's cancer. My sister did some chemotherapies. After the chemo, the test showed significant reduction of sensitivity for the drugs used. We had never said to the lab what kind of treatment she did. Considering these facts, I think that this test deserves more attention. You can ask Dr Papasotiriou all those issues raised (how they justify the rapid increase of the number of CTCs) and update your page with all new information. Dimitrisk (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, RGCC test is a scam[edit]

Dr Papasotiriou is billed has holding a patent on the RGCC cell-expansion process. In reality he has not been granted any patent. A patent-application exists in his name for proposed cancer treatment, which is not a patent for a test.Guvax (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ioannis Papasotiriou answers all questions[edit]

On RGCC site, I found an interesting discussion between Dr. Papasotiriou and a blogger, where all these issues raised are answered by Dr. Papasotiriou with references to scientific literature. For example, regarding the issue of CTC cultures and how fast they can grow, Dr. Papasotiriou states this: <<the growing rate of CSCs can be up to many thousand times faster than a typical cancer cell line. See relevant article Toloudi et al 2014 “Comparison of growth curves of cancer cell lines and cancer stem cells”.>> I would suggest to read all this discussion I am not a biologist, so I cannot say if these statements are right or wrong. However, it is really important for the cancer community to double check RGCC methods and either approve or disapprove, but on pure scientific basis. Dr. Papasotiriou says that anyone can visit his lab and watch all the process. Dimitrisk (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Ioannis Papasotiriou holds no patents[edit]

Before we get blinded by science, RGCC claim Dr. Ioannis Papasotiriou holds a patent for their cell-expansion process. This is not true. You can check: only a patent-application for a proposed cancer-treatment exists in his name.Guvax (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

My experience so far[edit]

My spouse has TNBC and we did tests on two different occasions which gave results on the a) number of CTCs b) over/under expression of several genes c) chemosensitivity of various drugs d) natural extract sensitivity

IMO, a) seem legit enough. The Wiki article is WRONG in expressing skepticism of finding CTCs. Although technologically challenging this is now done. See for article on CTCs. Now whether RGCC actually uses this tech is a different issue but their results correlated with PET/CT scans (results of which were not shared with the RGCC folks).

In terms of b) analysising the RNA expression once you have a cell (like a CTC) is fairly common and easy now. Conventional biopsy does the same thing. The TGCC results correlated strongly with earlier conventional biopsy results (keep in mind cancer expressions change regularly through treatment as well as naturally and CTCs may not always correlate with biopsy material given the heterogenous nature of the disease.)

I am not sure about c) and d). I share the Wiki’s skepticism about the ability to multiply cells in such a short time to preform chemosensitivity analysis (which is done with biopsy samples). But as importantly, we found the results may not sjways match what we experienced. That could also be due to a) fact that CTCs may not represent the most agresssive parts of the tumor b) combination therapies are not reflected.

Long story short: I believe based on 2 tests at different times that a) and b) are useful and potentially valid while c) and d) are much less so.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yes there are legit tests to measure the number of CTCs in blood[edit]

But no-one can make a trillion cancer cells from a hundred in two days, which is what RGCC claim they do in their allegedly-patented chemosensitivity-test. "I share the Wiki’s skepticism about the ability to multiply cells in such a short time to preform chemosensitivity analysis". In which case you should not do business with them. If the patent claim is false, and cell-expansion claim is false, why believe anything they say ?. Bear in mind RGCC's sole-agent the for entire North American continent is a chiropractor (with a bad wig). The only profe$$ional$ I've seen who recommend RGCC testing are charlatans & disgraced-doctors.Guvax (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Dr Papasotiriou had an Australian patent granted in 2017[edit]

In 2017 Ioannis Papasotiriou was granted a Australian patent for a proposed cancer treatment,
see ...
However this is not a patent for a blood-test or a patent for a method of cell-culture.
Prior to 2017 there were no patents granted anyone named Ioannis Papasotiriou.
In 2013 RCGG claimed their Dr Ioannis Papasotiriou held a patent for "circulating tumour cell testing",
see ...
To date (2019) there are only 4 patents granted to people with the surname Papasotiriou,
none are even remotely related to blood-tests or cell culture,
see ...
Guvax (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This test works[edit]

I chose not to use rgcc initially given some info on this website claiming it to be a fraud. I went for a biopsy instead and the biopsy caused spread and I’m now terminally ill. I have since started using rgcc and I have ample evidence to suggest their tests are accurate. They are very sensitive to ctcs, can detect very low levels. Their sensitivities tests have not only worked for me, but they have also indicated when the treatments have met resistance and have become less effective. Someone needs to correct the misinformation on this website as I believe it’s inadvertently killing people. — Unsigned, by: Markseantaylor / talk / contribs