|
|
|
|
||
Re: ICI's and their unlimited abilities... "As such, clinicians must remain vigilant to the diverse clinical presentations of irAEs and the possibility that patients may present with irAEs late in the course of treatment, and – in some cases – months or even years after treatment discontinuation [26, 27]." I read the full length versions of both cites, Pennock GK, Chow LQ. The evolving role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment. Oncologist. 2015;20(7):812–22. and Luke JJ, Ott PA. PD-1 pathway inhibitors: the next generation of immunotherapy for advanced melanoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6(6):3479–92. There was no mention of latent irSAE's occurring years after treatment discontinuation. I am still very skeptical. "I don't disagree that Ipi has the broadest toxicity profile of all the ICI's. But the Anti-PDL1/PD1's still have an extremely wide toxicity profile." Again, which is more important, the number of possible types of SAE's or the overall frequency of any SAE? The PD1's have consistently had a better SAE profile than the active control arms to which they have been compared. As monotherapy, the PD1's have consistently shown a superior safety profile when compared to both standard of care chemo and targeted therapy regimens. "It's not my list. I quoted it. It's ESMO's list. Are you going to say they are misguided?" The list is accurate, implying that the PD1's are less safe than the standards of care which they have replaced is misguided. "They are not successful for the majority of patients. That is altogether different. If one is a Merck/BMY shareholder, then commercial success may be all that one is concerned about." Progress in oncology is unfortunately incremental. Most stage 3/4 cancers are still terminal despite steady progress in cancer treatment. When a drug is reported to have a 25% response rate, it does mean that 75% of the patients did not respond. You can make the argument that the drug was of limited or no benefit to the large majority of patients. Using that measure, how many patients have been "successfully" treated with -L or -D? "You are the one who is bringing DCVax into the picture in the above paragraph. The 'conduct' of the P3, as you describe it, has nothing to do with the toxicity of the ICI's" I do try to steer the conversation to DCVax whenever I can. I believe that is the name of the forum. Finding fault with Optune and the PD1's seems to go hand in hand with being an NWBO shareholder. Optune because it is a successful treatment for GBM and the PD1's because they show how immune therapy can work successfully. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
12881 | Re: ICI's and their unlimited abilities... | longfellow95 | 0 | 2/17/2019 5:02:36 AM |