A more intensive postoperative chemotherapy regimen for high-risk gastric cancer patients did not improve their survival, according to a randomized controlled trial in the April 18 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=23811



A more intensive postoperative chemotherapy regimen for high-risk
gastric cancer patients did not improve their survival, according to a
randomized controlled trial in the April 18 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute.
The five-year survival rate for gastric cancer patients who undergo
radical surgery is typically between 15 and 32 percent. Efforts to improve
survival with new therapies, including postoperative chemotherapy, have yet
to yield statistically significant results.

Stefano Cascinu, M.D, of the Universita Politecnica delle Marche in
Ancona, Italy, and colleagues conducted a multi-center, randomized phase III
trial of 397 high-risk gastric cancer patients who were given either eight
weekly treatments of five chemotherapy drugs or six monthly treatments of
only two of the drugs. After their treatment, the patients were followed for
a median of 54 months.

The researchers found no significant difference in survival between
the two groups. The five-drug regimen did not reduce the risk of death or
relapse. Both groups had about a 50 percent five-year survival rate, which
is much higher than previous studies have shown.

"The unexpectedly long survival time in our trial may be due to
several factors, among them, the high quality of surgery, observed in our
trial," the authors write. "Furthermore, toxicity associated with
postoperative chemotherapy as reported in our trial and in other studies,
suggest that it may be preferable to move toward preoperative approaches."

In an accompanying editorial, Susan Ellenberg, Ph.D., and Weijing Sun,
M.D., of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia,
discuss the lessons to be learned from this negative result. "Unfortunately,
some legislators, pushed by patient advocacy groups, seem willing to ignore
the lessons of the past and are pushing for an extensive rollback of
regulatory policy such that drugs for cancer and other life-threatening
diseases could be marketed without being shown to be beneficial in a
rigorously designed and conducted trial such as this study's authors have
described. This trial provides an important reminder of how much patients
have to lose should such efforts prevail," the authors write.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org

===

Hmm, it seems Peter Moran forgot to report this or put it on his
biased website....

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bOgXh.3905$rO7.217@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net ...
>

> Hmm, it seems Peter Moran forgot to report this or put it on his
> biased website....

Leave me alone, Jan.

I admit I am biased against alternative cancer treatments and explain why at
" A glimpse into the skeptical mind" at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_1.htm ,
giving other reasons at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm. In
fact. my whole web site explains why. You should be, too.

What is YOUR problem? Don't you feel somewhat encouraged that in such a
serious kind of cancer as gastric cancer, advanced cases are now surviving
for five years, meaning that most of them are now cured?

Isn't it good that a new treatment was tried out to find out if it improved
results, and the authors were prompt in letting everyone know when it did
not?

This post is not a signal that I want to engage in correspondence with you.

Peter Moran




>
>
>
>
>
>

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:462da7f5$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:bOgXh.3905$rO7.217@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net ...
>>
>
>> Hmm, it seems Peter Moran forgot to report this or put it on his
>> biased website....
>
> Leave me alone, Jan.
>
So..now you are bothered........

Quote:

*RCTs are of vital importance to oncology but they come into play at a later
stage, when treatments with known activity against cancer are compared to
find out which works best.*

> I admit I am biased against alternative cancer treatments and explain why
> at " A glimpse into the skeptical mind" at
> http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_1.htm ,
> giving other reasons at
> http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
> In fact. my whole web site explains why. You should be, too.
>
> What is YOUR problem?

MY problem???

The correct people to ask are the National Cancer Institute.


Don't you feel somewhat encouraged that in such a
> serious kind of cancer as gastric cancer, advanced cases are now surviving
> for five years, meaning that most of them are now cured?

Say what?!?!

Where... oh... where did you get the idea most were cured?


>
> Isn't it good that a new treatment was tried out to find out if it
> improved results, and the authors were prompt in letting everyone know
> when it did not?

Hmmm, as bit of a twist. How long have they lied in pushing chemo?
Which not only does not NOW work with this kind of cancer.

They have long lied......

But you think it is wonderful they are cured.

WOW!

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/de...e=6582#prevent
Recurrence after surgery

Doctors are keen to find out whether giving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or
both) after surgery for stomach cancer will help to stop cancers from coming
back and so improve survival rates.

A trial called MAGIC looked at treating people with operable stomach cancer
with chemotherapy before and after surgery. You may hear this called
peri-operative chemotherapy. Results showed that chemotherapy helped to
reduce the size of the cancer and made it easier to remove fully with
surgery. Having chemotherapy before and after surgery also helped stop the
cancer coming back and helped people live longer.
>
> This post is not a signal that I want to engage in correspondence with
> you.
>
> Peter Moran

Uh huh, we wouldn't want you to be truthful, stick with what *organized and
conventional* has spewed...even if it is a peck of lies.

Sad that.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jan Drew wrote:

> "Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:462da7f5$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:bOgXh.3905$rO7.217@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>> Hmm, it seems Peter Moran forgot to report this or put it on his
>>>biased website....
>>
>>Leave me alone, Jan.
>>
>
> So..now you are bothered........
>
> Quote:
>
> *RCTs are of vital importance to oncology but they come into play at a later
> stage, when treatments with known activity against cancer are compared to
> find out which works best.*
>
>
>>I admit I am biased against alternative cancer treatments and explain why
>>at " A glimpse into the skeptical mind" at
>>http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_1.htm ,
>>giving other reasons at
>>http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
>>In fact. my whole web site explains why. You should be, too.
>>
>>What is YOUR problem?
>
>
> MY problem???
>
> The correct people to ask are the National Cancer Institute.
>
>
> Don't you feel somewhat encouraged that in such a
>
>>serious kind of cancer as gastric cancer, advanced cases are now surviving
>>for five years, meaning that most of them are now cured?
>
>
> Say what?!?!
>
> Where... oh... where did you get the idea most were cured?
>
>
>
>>Isn't it good that a new treatment was tried out to find out if it
>>improved results, and the authors were prompt in letting everyone know
>>when it did not?
>
>
> Hmmm, as bit of a twist. How long have they lied in pushing chemo?
> Which not only does not NOW work with this kind of cancer.
>
> They have long lied......
>
> But you think it is wonderful they are cured.

Apparently, you don't think it is wonderful they are cured.
What a despicable person you are.


> WOW!
>
> http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/de...e=6582#prevent
> Recurrence after surgery
>
> Doctors are keen to find out whether giving chemotherapy or radiotherapy (or
> both) after surgery for stomach cancer will help to stop cancers from coming
> back and so improve survival rates.
>
> A trial called MAGIC looked at treating people with operable stomach cancer
> with chemotherapy before and after surgery. You may hear this called
> peri-operative chemotherapy. Results showed that chemotherapy helped to
> reduce the size of the cancer and made it easier to remove fully with
> surgery. Having chemotherapy before and after surgery also helped stop the
> cancer coming back and helped people live longer.
>
>>This post is not a signal that I want to engage in correspondence with
>>you.
>>
>>Peter Moran
>
>
> Uh huh, we wouldn't want you to be truthful, stick with what *organized and
> conventional* has spewed...even if it is a peck of lies.
>
> Sad that.