Aureon Labs

Quote









Did Aureon ever hire a field sales staff? Over a month ago a headhunter said they were ready to proceed and it seems nothing has happened. Was there a delay from the FDA or something else that happened?
 


They just started to hire on the east coast. It looks like they are adding a lot more head count to get there new test on the market. So far it looks like the company is headed in the right direction.
 


Anonymous said:
They just started to hire on the east coast. It looks like they are adding a lot more head count to get there new test on the market. So far it looks like the company is headed in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Got a call from recruiter for a position today. Tried to speak with a few UR this afternoon about company, testing, but all left(friday afternoon). I will keep you posted. Sent rec my information talk on Monday.
any information appreciated.
 


Good company,

I just got hired recently. Did a lot of research on the company, before interviewing. Good contacts with urologists are crucial. If you are hired you will be glad that you made the move....
 


What I am wondering is what is the actual clinical utility of their test? Seems to be predicting risk of recurrence after prostatectomy, correct? Wouldn't it be better to be able to predict risk of progression without surgery?
 


The studies are underway to help predict that information. Most urologists understand since most patients with cancer want something done. There has been little published (multiyear)on being a watchful waiter with prosate cancer. It's an exciting company with a promising test. It may help guide a doctor and patient to form the best approach to treatment. Brachy vs surgery or Brachy plus hormonal therapy. Several ways to use the test and many docs like the utility!
 


Does anyone know if Nashville, TN is one of the open territories for Aureon? I found this posting (below) and am trying to identify the company. Is it Aureon? I have very strong urology contacts and am looking to switch jobs.

Our client has partnered with leading cancer research institutions and scientists to develop a cutting edge test to determine the likelihood of the reoccurrence of certain cancers. They are looking for current high performing, high science Urology Sales Reps to join their “start-up” sales team. As a Urology/Oncology Medical Device Representative, you would be responsible for driving sales and strengthening relationships with key customers creating strategic business plans to identify opportunities. This opportunity has a competitive base salary plus a high target uncapped Bonus/Commission.
 




Consider the following

They are going into their fourth round of financing
Their third round only netted them 12 million with existing investors (new ones opted out)
Their burn rate exceeds $1.5 million per month
They have no track record of strong market adoption of their test
The clinical utility of their test is debatable
Management is paid exceedingly well for poor performance
Management has made several huge mistakes - they hired their first sales force without having an actual product to sell and then had to lay them all off when; they failed to properly validate the test, as they attempted to validate the test with prostatectomy sections when the training set was created with needle biopsies. 12 million dollars wasted, not to mention the $ wasted by having a sales team onboard for more than 6 months with no product to sell.
Their "systems pathology" platform is largely based on Definiens eCognition software
Nobody likes the CFO and if they act like they do, they are faking it.
The president and COO's only job is to avoid conflict at all costs and rarely takes a stand
Opposing viewpoints are not welcome here
The director of labs is neurotic / bi-polar
Their business is not scalable, as it requires several manual steps
They have sold less than $500K since the launch of the test last summer

You decide...
 


Yo buddy,
You sound really down on the place, why are you still there?

Also, any place has pros/cons, is there anything good about the company, or is it one we should stay far away from?
 




As far as I can tell from my investigation, Aureon is a strong company with management excellence, a dedicated staff, national sales force and at least two tests on the market that Urologists continue to order for their patients. Check out their web site at http://www.aureon.com

A NOTE about this Anonymous highly negative, posting about Aureon - I hear this person was fired for repeated lack of performance. Easy to bash once you have been let go.


Anonymous said:
Consider the following

They are going into their fourth round of financing
Their third round only netted them 12 million with existing investors (new ones opted out)
Their burn rate exceeds $1.5 million per month
They have no track record of strong market adoption of their test
The clinical utility of their test is debatable
Management is paid exceedingly well for poor performance
Management has made several huge mistakes - they hired their first sales force without having an actual product to sell and then had to lay them all off when; they failed to properly validate the test, as they attempted to validate the test with prostatectomy sections when the training set was created with needle biopsies. 12 million dollars wasted, not to mention the $ wasted by having a sales team onboard for more than 6 months with no product to sell.
Their "systems pathology" platform is largely based on Definiens eCognition software
Nobody likes the CFO and if they act like they do, they are faking it.
The president and COO's only job is to avoid conflict at all costs and rarely takes a stand
Opposing viewpoints are not welcome here
The director of labs is neurotic / bi-polar
Their business is not scalable, as it requires several manual steps
They have sold less than $500K since the launch of the test last summer

You decide...
Click to expand...
 


Hey Big Boy, we all know who you are! You act like this isn't a sustainable business. Tests are being ordered everyday and lives are being changed. We can all understand your frustration, money being wasted, inside politics, neurotic employees...No matter where you go there will be bad decisions made, but Aureon is headed in a better direction. There's a need for this test, although it's not clearly defined; we will be defining it in the near future. Most urologists love the concept of more accurate information. Once we can show them how it can impact their treatment decisions this company will be going places. I'm sorry you are so down on the negatives but there's a brighter future for Aureon.

So long!
 


Anonymous said:
Hey Big Boy, we all know who you are! You act like this isn't a sustainable business. Tests are being ordered everyday and lives are being changed. ...QUOTE]

Lives are being changed - and we really won't know for another 5-8 years if this test is really working or not.

The question is though on the financial front - is it too late? A company going for it's fourth round of financing really needs to be showing strong, quarterly growth at this point.

The recent article from Aureon's website isn't that stellar:

“It helps us to accurately as possible right now predict the outcome of a patient long term at the time of diagnosis,” said Brown, who has been using the test for about four months. “I think that patients should be aware that there is a new test out there that they can utilize, which may modify the way that their urologist treats their prostate cancer.” Note this urologist didn't say "it will modify." This is pretty weak statement from an existing user of the test.

Again, the question is how much clinical benefit does this test afford a patient and their doctor, when you can reach 90% of the accuracy of this test with existing, and much cheaper methods?

If you really want to get the lowdown on this test, read the editorial published in response to Aureon's latest publication:

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/26/24/3916

EDITORIAL

Systems Pathology and Predicting Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy
Eric A. Klein, Andrew J. Stephenson, Derek Raghavan, Robert Dreicer
Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

...

Excitement over this potential improvement in accuracy must be tempered by limitations in its clinical utility. In an additional analysis, the authors compared the concordance index for the systems pathology–derived model with that of a 10-variable model that contained only the usual clinical parameters (stage, PSA, biopsy Gleason score and sum, prostatectomy Gleason score and sum, and pathologic extent in the prostatectomy specimen) generated by Cox regression. In this analysis, the concordance index for the 10-variable clinical model was 0.80 and improved only slightly to 0.83 for the systems pathology approach. The corresponding hazard ratios for clinical failure were 6.37 and 9.11, respectively. Although the difference in concordance indices was statistically significant, the question is whether there is sufficient clinical relevance to justify the extra effort, expense, and expertise needed for the systems approach. The clinical utility of defining high risk for failure after radical prostatectomy is to decide whether patients require closer follow-up than average or whether adjuvant radiotherapy, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy would be of benefit. In contemporary practice, a patient with a hazard ratio of 6.37 generated by the model using easily derived, routinely reported clinical and pathologic parameters is just as likely to be a candidate for closer monitoring or adjuvant therapy than one with a hazard ratio of 9.11 generated by the systems approach.

All the personal nonsense aside, the financials of this company, as well as the ability to impact point of care standards look troubling.
Click to expand...
 


EDITORIAL

Systems Pathology and Predicting Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy
Eric A. Klein, Andrew J. Stephenson, Derek Raghavan, Robert Dreicer
Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

...

Excitement over this potential improvement in accuracy must be tempered by limitations in its clinical utility. In an additional analysis, the authors compared the concordance index for the systems pathology–derived model with that of a 10-variable model that contained only the usual clinical parameters (stage, PSA, biopsy Gleason score and sum, prostatectomy Gleason score and sum, and pathologic extent in the prostatectomy specimen) generated by Cox regression. In this analysis, the concordance index for the 10-variable clinical model was 0.80 and improved only slightly to 0.83 for the systems pathology approach. The corresponding hazard ratios for clinical failure were 6.37 and 9.11, respectively. Although the difference in concordance indices was statistically significant, the question is whether there is sufficient clinical relevance to justify the extra effort, expense, and expertise needed for the systems approach.[/U] The clinical utility of defining high risk for failure after radical prostatectomy is to decide whether patients require closer follow-up than average or whether adjuvant radiotherapy, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy would be of benefit. In contemporary practice, a patient with a hazard ratio of 6.37 generated by the model using easily derived, routinely reported clinical and pathologic parameters is just as likely to be a candidate for closer monitoring or adjuvant therapy than one with a hazard ratio of 9.11 generated by the systems approach.
[/QUOTE]

Great post: Also keep in mind that this publication was based on prostate sections and not biopsies - the accuracy of the biopsy based test is even lower than for sections, meaning that the clinical benefit vs. cost is even lower.
 


Anonymous said:
Once we can show them how it can impact their treatment decisions this company will be going places.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment...

It would be educational to know:

How does a non-FDA approved test impact treatment decisions? I was under the impression that the only way a test such as this could dictate treatment choices is if the test is FDA approved? How many patients / doctors will be comfortable changing treatment options based on a test that has no prospective studies to back it up, and no FDA backing?

Let's say you had a person who had a Px+ score of 31, and a person with a Px+ score of 75 - what would then be the corresponding treatment regimens each patient would get?Would these be consistent from urologist to urologist?

In other words, does Px+ suffer from the same ambiguity that many other genetic tests offer - the information is interesting, but what do you do with it and if there really isn't any consensus, is it worth $2900 bucks to pay for such a test that is only marginally better than existing methods of risk assessment? Just wondering if there is a viable product here to sell as I am thinking of throwing my hat in the ring.
 



Write your reply...
Top Bottom
Back
Quote