New melanoma drugs =?iso-8859-1?Q?=97?= why do so few benefit?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24968389/ [Excerpts]
New melanoma drugs — why do so few benefit?
Few patients respond to targeted skin cancer treatments

updated 12:23 p.m. ET June 4, 2008

CHICAGO - When they work, new melanoma treatments that enlist the help of
the immune system to attack tumors can have a stunning effect, in some
cases arresting the deadly skin cancer for four years.

But typically just a handful of patients get that kind of response.


What we really are trying to understand is which patients should be
treated with these drugs,” she said in an interview.

Two big drug makers — Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. — are the
farthest along in developing these drugs, but both programs have had major
setbacks in the past two months.

Pfizer in April said its targeted treatment tremelimumab did not work any
better than chemotherapy in a large study.

And Bristol-Myers and its partner Medarex Inc. in April said they would
delay seeking marketing approval of ipilimumab for advanced melanoma after
U.S. regulators asked for more proof that the drug, also a targeted
treatment, helps people live longer.

Wolchok’s own study illustrates the point. He gave ipilimumab to 155
patients with advanced melanoma. After 12 weeks, 53 of the patients
developed new tumors, meaning the cancer had progressed and a sign that
the drug had failed.

The researchers continued to follow 26 of the 53 and found that in seven,
the new tumors eventually shrank.

“It’s very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn’t
benefit,” Wolchok said.

Other studies of ipilimumab presented this week showed the drug improved
overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma to 10 to 13 months,
compared with an average of six to nine months on standard therapy.

"J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:48905715.A25E5F48@execulink.com...
>
> "It's very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn't
> benefit," Wolchok said.
>

And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.

Steph wrote:

> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
> >
> > "It's very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn't
> > benefit," Wolchok said.
> >
>
> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.

Who is "we" please? Canadians not accepting reality as well?
J

"J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:489135A1.730DDCA2@execulink.com...
> Steph wrote:
>
>> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
>> >
>> > "It's very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn't
>> > benefit," Wolchok said.
>> >
>>
>> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
>
> Who is "we" please? Canadians not accepting reality as well?
> J
>

Oncologist enthusiasts of all nationalities

On Jul 30, 6:57 am, J <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24968389/[Excerpts]
> New melanoma drugs — why do so few benefit?
> Few patients respond to targeted skin cancer treatments
>
> updated 12:23 p.m. ET June 4, 2008
>
> CHICAGO - When they work, new melanoma treatments that enlist the help of
> the immune system to attack tumors can have a stunning effect, in some
> cases arresting the deadly skin cancer for four years.
>
> But typically just a handful of patients get that kind of response.
>
Only a handful of patents benefit because this latest dead-end is just
one more ultimately ineffective cancer treatment. The apparently
ubiquitous inability of cancer researchers and oncologists to
understand even the most elemental properties of this condition
condemn cancer patients to endure barbaric and ineffective treatments
and the hands of the most unenlightened aliopathic practitioners.
Even a four-year reprieve certainly does not constitute a cure. The
great medical minds should try to solve the real meaning of tumors and
see them as a normal response of a body overwhelmed by constant
toxins, irritants and inflammation. By treating the cause rather than
the symptoms of this unfortunate condition, medical science my someday
make real inroads to preventing and CURING cancer. Until then, don't
waste your money or effort on the Susan G. Komen 5K run or other old-
school efforts to support already failed research and treatment.
These people have no motive to cure cancer.

Steph wrote:

> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
> > Steph wrote:
> >
> >> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "It's very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn't
> >> > benefit," Wolchok said.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
> >
> > Who is "we" please? Canadians not accepting reality as well?
> > J
> >
>
> Oncologist enthusiasts of all nationalities

You lead. I'll listen.
What difficulty?
J

"J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:48921779.5D9AD419@execulink.com...
> Steph wrote:
>
>> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
>> > Steph wrote:
>> >
>> >> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > "It's very hard for me to convince myself that those folks didn't
>> >> > benefit," Wolchok said.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
>> >
>> > Who is "we" please? Canadians not accepting reality as well?
>> > J
>> >
>>
>> Oncologist enthusiasts of all nationalities
>
> You lead. I'll listen.
> What difficulty?
> J
>

More cost in dollars than the systm can afford.
More cost in side-effects for no benefit than the patients can afford.

"J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:48A019B7.F00ACAD4@execulink.com...
> Steph wrote:
>
>>
>> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
>
> Speaking of dufficulties, why are young peoples cancers on the rise (since
> 1938?)
> What thoughts (theories) have you floated about that?
> J
>
>

Weel, the increase inm H&N cancers may be related to HPV, which may be
related to sexual issues. Smoking pot may be another factor.

Steph wrote:

> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
> > Steph wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
> >
> > Speaking of dufficulties, why are young peoples cancers on the rise (since
> > 1938?)
> > What thoughts (theories) have you floated about that?
> > J
> >
> >
>
> Weel, the increase inm H&N cancers may be related to HPV, which may be
> related to sexual issues. Smoking pot may be another factor.

Osteosarcoma of the jaw? (female - 17 year old)
Synovial Sarcoma of the cheek wall? (female - early 20's)
J

"J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:48A11DBE.2BABE09C@execulink.com...
> Steph wrote:
>
>> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
>> > Steph wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.
>> >
>> > Speaking of dufficulties, why are young peoples cancers on the rise
>> > (since
>> > 1938?)
>> > What thoughts (theories) have you floated about that?
>> > J
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Weel, the increase inm H&N cancers may be related to HPV, which may be
>> related to sexual issues. Smoking pot may be another factor.
>
> Osteosarcoma of the jaw? (female - 17 year old)
> Synovial Sarcoma of the cheek wall? (female - early 20's)
> J
>

Sarcomas have always been relatively more common in youngsters than
carcinomas. Still pretty rare, though.

On Aug 12, 2:23*am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "J" <xewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
.
>
> >> > Speaking of dufficulties, why are young peoples cancers on the rise
> >> >. Still pretty rare, though.

A young friend just had her 20th birthday. A couple of months before
that she was diagnosed with another rare cancer, Sertoli-Leydig
Blastoma. Although this is usually testicular, it can be ovarian, as
it is in her case. Her tumor was very fast developing and in a matter
of months grew to 20 lbs when removed. She is undergoing chemo...what
I do not know. I do know it is NOT BEP. Another friend's child was
diagnosed at 14 with ovarian and had chemo. 8 years later she is
still cancer free. Another, diagnosed with breast and then ovarian in
late 20;s. She died this year at age 42 after a long long struggle.
Between first breast occurrence and recurrence she did have a son.
She called him her miracle child. My young friend with the Sertli-
Leydig Blastoma had to decide if she wanted her eggs harvested if she
would want children in the future. This would delay the chemo regime
for a couple of months. She opted for the chemo as soon as possible.
But what a horrible scenario for someone that age. My beloved Franzi
died at 79 from colorectal. At least he lived a long, useful and
happy life. So much of this is denied to these young people.

Steph wrote:

>
> And that's why we're in the difficulties we're in. That's not science.

Speaking of dufficulties, why are young peoples cancers on the rise (since
1938?)
What thoughts (theories) have you floated about that?
J

http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/port...06_English.pdf

Etiologic research
There is relatively little awareness about the unique pattern of cancer in
this age
group and little research into the reasons for it. Increased research
focused on the
etiology of cancers in this age group will make prevention and risk
reduction possible.
The picture of cancer in the young adult years differs in a number of ways
from
that of other stages of life. First, tumours are split almost equally
between
epithelial and non-epithelial; in later life, most cancers are of the
former type
while in childhood most are of the latter type. Second, cancer is nearly
50% more
common in young adult women than men; at all other stages of life there is
a male
excess. Third, some of the most common cancers are almost unique to this
age
group—testicular cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma being primary examples.
Fourth, a number of the most common cancers are increasing in incidence
without
any real understanding of why. These unique features strongly suggest some

differences in either relevant risk factors or biological mechanisms, or
both.
Genetic susceptibility is likely to be a particularly important
determinant of cancer
risk in young adults, although genetic traits cannot, on their own,
explain the
recent incidence trends. This population may therefore be ideal for
exploring the
role of genetic factors, particularly gene-environment interactions, to
explain
why, with similar environmental exposures, some people get cancer and
others do
not. Such research may identify subgroups at particularly high risk that
can be
targeted for preventive actions.

<
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en..._uids=11886342
>
Head and neck cancer incidence trends in young Americans, 1973-1997, with
a special analysis for tongue cancer.

Schantz SP, Yu GP.

Department of Otolaryngology, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, 310 E
14th St, New York, NY 10003, USA. sschantz@nyee.edu

OBJECTIVE: To examine the temporal changes in head and neck cancer in
young adults in the United States. METHODS: Using the cancer surveillance
database from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology,
and End Results (SEER) Program, we calculated age-adjusted incidence rates
for head and neck cancers. Using the joinpoint regression model, we
described tongue cancer incidence trends and established the statistical
significance of temporal changes. We also compared changes in 5-year
survival rates for tongue cancer.

RESULTS: From 1973 to 1997, there were 63 409 patients with head and neck
cancer in the 9 SEER registries. Of these, 3339 patients were younger than
40 years. The incidence of head and neck cancer remained stable in groups
older than 40 years comparing the 1973-1984 and 1985-1997 data. In
contrast, tongue cancer in adults younger than 40 years increased
approximately 60% during the same period. We detected a significant
increase until 1985, the estimated annual percentage change being 6.7%
(95% confidence interval, 2.7%-10.8%; P<.001).

After 1985, incidence rates stopped rising but remained steadily high. The
change in tongue cancer incidence rates for young adults was related to
birth cohorts between 1938 and 1948.

The absolute increase in 5-year survival for tongue cancer ranged from
11.7% (<40 years old) to 6.6% (40-64 years old) between 1973-1984 and
1985-1997, with the most significant improvement occurring in young
Americans with regional or distant disease (27% and 21%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: A sharp increasing trend in tongue cancer in young Americans
may be attributed to persons born after 1938. The reason for the increase
is uncertain. Improved survival rates in young patients suggest the
emergence of a distinct disease process that is apparent in white but not
black populations.